![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Links to wtharvey.com have been added to several of our chess player biography articles lately. Looks spammy to me. Comments? MaxBrowne ( talk) 12:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
First In the last 8 years I wrote about 450 articles about chess in the Hebrew wikipedia, and also made use of the wonderful tool to input whole games with a java tool that makes possible to move the game automatically and allows me to annotate the games. See for example: 78th Tata Steel Masters 2016 . I offered it the the English wikipedia, but for reasons that I do not understand it was rejected. It helps a lot when you wnat to show important games without bothering to create diagrams and type moves.
Second - chesswise I am an ICCF Grandmaster with my best rating 2655 (now 2576)
I assure you that the links I added are excellent chess material. Some of them are easy (for me) but some of them are challenging even to strong masters, so without doubt they are very good examples of the tactical best moves that the specific player ever played. I attach here one of the links that I added so that the readers will understand what we are discussing. I added today this links some chess puzzles from the games of Yuri Averbakh , and all the other are the same only from games of other players. How can you write that this is spam?
I assure you that I have no connection whatsoever to the creator of this website and no gain from adding the links. I simply think that they are excellent - real gems! -- Yoavd ( talk) 15:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I have a question too: do you have contributors that are highly rated chess players? You could ask them the same question and get answers from experts and then you could decide. I write this as I also read a debate on the quality of question mark in annotation (see above). Comparing Estrin (former ICCF world champion and a very strong IM in OTB chess) annotations in the Two Knights Defense where he was the world top expert and his game with Berliner is a masterpiece ( I have read his excellent book on this defence) to Mr. Harding (which I know very well, and corresponded with him for years) is impossible. If you would ask any chess expert he would advise to rely on Estrin's assessment, as he was the world expert on the subject. Certainly saying anything about 4th move is difficult, but still - you cannot compare the depth of understanding between those two opinions. -- Yoavd ( talk) 05:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Whether people have access to Encyclopedia of Chess Combinations has nothing to do with what I said. As for Arabidze, she reached the quarterfinals of the Women's World Chess Championship 2015 – based on how previous discussions regarding chess biographies have gone, her notability is not in question. The "bad thing" is that the linked puzzles add nothing to the reader's understanding of who the player is. They are just positions extracted from the player's games with no context or explanation as to how or why this was done. For instance, nowhere is it even asserted that they represent "the best of their tactical moves", as you suggest. (That is demonstrably untrue in the case of Averbakh.) No doubt it takes a lot of work to present a person's biography and achievements properly, but that is not an excuse to link to a website whose purpose is something completely different. Cobblet ( talk) 06:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I am really sorry to see this outcome; this adds to the strange decision not to add the wonderful tool to show chess games in the wikipedia as I demonstrated. Pity for the English wikipedia. I shall stay now with the Hebrew wikipedia. -- Yoavd ( talk) 04:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I've made a number of edits about the Kasparov-Polgar touch-move controversy at the Judit Polgar page. I'd like regulars from the project to review my changes and make any edits as they see fit. I know it's a controversial incident so it's important that wikipedia reflects a NPOV. MaxBrowne ( talk) 10:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Is being a FIDE Master sufficient for notability? See Michael J. R. White. Pam D 21:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I added a WikiProject Chess banner to List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer, so I am wondering if somebody wouldn't mind assessing it. Also, there's been a bit of edit warring going on there over some categories (see Talk:List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer#Category). Maybe someone from WP:CHESS whose familiar how Category:Chess books and Category:Films about chess are added to chess-related articles could comment on whether they cover the article. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest the idea, to break out of Project Chess, all chess topics that relate to non-FIDE chess. (In other words, Project Chess would be about FIDE chess, also called "international chess". And the other project, containing shogi, xiangqi, Chess960, Grand Chess, Fairy chess, etc., ... all the traditional, national, and modern variations of chess. The two distinct groups have a wealth of material per group, and are a bit alien to one another ... even to the point of, as is well known, lots of active chess players, who sometimes become WP Chess Project editor members, have preference against, or even plain prejudices against, non-traditional variations of 'chess'.)
I don't have a proposed Project name in mind to contain all chess that is not FIDE-defined chess, because there might be disagreement over said name, and, that could/would be a distraction from the point. (Project Chess = FIDE-defined chess; New Project = all other chesses.) I think maybe there are other advantages and things that make sense too, for having the two projects distinct, that I'm not even thinking at the moment. (A substantially different set of literature sources, research skills/interests, etc.!?)
Of course there would be some article overlap, e.g. History of chess. But that is normal and unproblematical. IHTS ( talk) 00:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
For the inelegantly titled article Irregular chess openings, wikipedia appears to have taken a traditional (old-fashioned) chess term and redefined it in order to fit what was already in the article (original title was A00). "Irregular Opening" is certainly not a synonym of ECO code A00. It might covers unusual replies to conventional White opening moves, unusual setups like g3, Bg2, b3, Bb2, d3, e3, Ne2, Nd2, a3, h3 or.... really it just means whatever the particular writer thinks it means, though the time and context when it was written is also a factor. It is an inherently imprecise term which has fallen out of favour in modern chess literature. An article called "Irregular opening" should discuss all this stuff. It is not a suitable title for an article about A00 openings (i.e. any 1st move by white except 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3, 1.b3 and 1.f4). At some point a wikipedian decided to redefine the term to be a synonym for ECO code A00 which is pure OR. I put tags on the article and discussed my concerns on the talk page but Mrjulesd does not seem to understand my points and removed the tags without properly addressing my concerns. The site chessarch.com isn't bad but it certainly isn't convincing evidence for the definition in the opening paragraph in the light of hundreds of years of chess literature which defined the term differently.
My proposed way forward is to delete this article (which is basically just a series of wikilinks anyway) and integrate the material into Chess opening. The space for Irregular opening (my preferred title) could then be used to discuss the historic use of/objections to the term by Lewis, Jaenisch, Tartakower etc and the decline in its use in chess literature as more and more openings were found to be viable. More eyes are needed to resolve this issue satisfactorily. MaxBrowne ( talk) 01:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#interactive chess boards. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irregular chess opening is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irregular chess opening until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MaxBrowne ( talk) 01:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I have created and started filling the articles about the team line-ups in the open event and women's event at the 42nd Chess Olympiad with information from the official website but it seems like a pretty arduous task. Help from other members of the project that are interested in the Chess Olympiad will be welcome. Thanks.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 13:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason why all the 42nd Olympiad information cannot be contained in the main article. It simply requires tight copy-editing to keep it concise and on the point. I think it's also way too early for nominating for GA status. I disagree with having an article on concerns and controversies, which I would guess is probably not appropriate. Jkmaskell ( talk) 14:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the GA nomination might have come too early and perhaps we should close it until the article stablises shortly after the conclusion of the event.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 10:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The rating bot has been down for over a year, making player ratings in the infobox display incorrectly. It turns out that the equivalent bot on dewiki is working, so I've manually copied the rating data from the equivalent template page on dewiki over here. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Elo_rating&action=history
I'll do this at the start of every month in future to ensure that the ratings display correctly. Hopefully someone will get our bot working again in the future, but until that happens, manually copying the data over is easy enough. Just letting you all know, so you don't have to worry about incorrect ratings being displayed any more. :)
Chessrat (
talk,
contributions)
16:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It is mentioned in one of the websites linked to the Lewis chessmen article that a Queen (Called in the article "The Clonard Queen") in very similar style was found in Ireland about 14 years prior to the Lewis chessmen.
This piece, its discovery and its eventual fate may make for an interesting article. But I think consensus would be needed before what I suspect would be a considerable research task could be started.
The website in question is linked below
The Lewis Chessmen on a Fantasy Iceland
Graham1973 ( talk) 13:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
A separate article is probably too speculative for now, because it seems unclear to me whether there is a wealth of good information lurking somewhere, or the extent of what is known amounts to little more than what is in the Chessbase article. But something could certainly be added to the LC article as a starting point and thereafter, if the story gathers enough unique momentum of its own ... Brittle heaven ( talk) 16:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a proposal to delete the article 43rd Chess Olympiad (2018 Olympiad) on the grounds that it is WP:TOOSOON. Those interested should !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43rd Chess Olympiad. Strawberry4Ever ( talk) 14:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Good day to all wikiproject members.
I am operating a bot that is importing ratings to wikidata I manually mined from http://ratings.fide.com/
The bot is running semiautomatic - I am checking the values it is adding to wd at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EloBot and telling it which data (which month and year) to upload.
I did not find a wrong value yet, but I am adding values to players from this query which is 3473 players.
I am writing to you for 2 reasons:
If you are willing to help me with the second item in the list, please go to https://ratings.fide.com/download.phtml, get an appropriate xml file and check if the player from that month has the right value on wikidata. The easiest way to search for such a value is to search for the fide id the bot set in the source of the statement you are checking.
Thank you in advance. -- Wesalius ( talk) 04:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I created this page to make it easier for users to find the Chess Userboxes: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Chess IQ125 ( talk) 13:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I refer to the recent edits at Anna Ushenina and List of Jewish chess players.
The editor concerned (a web address only, with a turbulent record for edit warring) has cited an online Russian or Ukrainian sports page, to assert that Ushenina is of Jewish ethnicity. The page does not respond to Google Translate (for me at least), and so it is not possible to read the claim, nor is it possible to assess whether the sports page appears to be a reliable source. The editor has repeated the same citation and added Ushenina to the List of Jewish chess players.
I am minded to revert the changes, but would appreciate the opinion of other editors. As a general rule, could such a claim be rightfully sourced to just one foreign language webpage and if yes, would it need to respond to Google Translate? And how do we assess whether foreign language webpages are reliable sources? From memory, this one had a fairly trashy look, with stacks of adverts and nothing that allied it to a reputable newspaper or news reporting agency. Brittle heaven ( talk) 12:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Mark Taimanov has died and it's been nominated for the 'in the news', one problem is the Mark_Taimanov#Chess_career section is unreferenced. Regards, Sun Creator( talk) 22:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi WT:CHESS. I came across Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis while cleaning up a citation in Garry Kasparov. The article had been deleted in March 2009 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis , but was re-created in April 2013. I've looked at the sources cited in the article and they are appear to be trivial mentions per WP:ORGDEPTH, so at first glance the club does not seem satisfy WP:NORG. Does this WikiProject have some specific notability guidelines for chess clubs? Should the article be brought back to AfD or tagged per WP:G4? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Chess/Archive 32 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I and I'm sure millions of others have been linked into a lot of articles on various chess positions and terminology this past month, and at least half of those used male pronouns by default as early as the lead, e.g. in Giuoco Piano: "Black aims to free his game by exchanging pieces..., or to hold his center pawn at e5." ⟨Del my family anecdote here as I shouldn't have had it in the first place – it was late.⟩ You know, I think chess might actually have a historically entrenched systematic male bias.... Long-story short, keep eyes open on chess articles for the whole default-player-is-male thing, especially in the lead. I cross-posted this on the GGTF also. SamuelRiv ( talk) 09:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Long-story short, keep eyes open on chess articles for the whole default-player-is-male thing, especially in the lead." First, I don't read masculine pronoun "he" to mean "default player is male" as you do, no matter MOS says about "he". (Like millions of other players, I read it as a generic, not a gender pointer.) And, I doubt very much that encouraging editors to create inconsistency between lead and body is consistent at all w/ numerous WP dictums harking to maintain consistency within a single article. (Your edits to Giuoco Piano did just that, created inconsistency between lead and body. I think that only adds confusion for readers, where confusion did not exist before. [Thus, how can be considered 'improvement'?] Editing a lead is easier than editing a full article, and can be more fun too. But that is the wrong fountain to drink from.) IHTS ( talk) 12:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
'Natural' writing...contains the best/most complete/most contexual info"??? To find "natural writing" one only need look to 6-year-olds or the 17th century: "uglyer", "goodest", "naycheur". I know, learning to write "unnaturally", what with complete sentences and stuff (Almost all spoken language does not use complete sentences – listen to a conversation sometime.), is hard and takes effort, but since you're a fan of the rules of previous centuries' grammarians, maybe it's time to upgrade to the latest release version from prescriptivist linguists: either alternate "he/she/one" throughout your work or use singular "they". SamuelRiv ( talk) 14:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, "he" is the best pronoun for indicating an example player of unknown gender. Why?
I will probably use "he" as a default pronoun if I write about opening theory or any other writing about a theoretical unidentified player on Wikipedia. -- 51.7.50.239 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
An experienced WP editor, one of whose focuses is grammar, today applied singular feminine pronoun her to article Malefiz. (Same as my suggestion above. For sure it's not the first time has been done in WP article; just the first time I've ever seen it.) Please read that article (it's short) to see how seamless, unobjectionable, clear & simple the result is! IHTS ( talk) 20:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I've just created Julio Sadorra. Plenty of news sources, but I am too busy to invest all my time into developing the article. Could anyone help me out? CatcherStorm talk 17:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I created Albert Sandrin Jr. about a year ago, but didn't know about this project talk page, and about other useful places to put references to that article. Enjoy! Bruce leverett ( talk) 02:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Useful or spam? MaxBrowne ( talk) 09:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
...when discussing Black moves, even if they are being discussed in terms of overall strategy without reference to specific move numbers. For example, in the chapter on the Giuoco Piano, MCO has "One can learn from the opening theory when/if to play ...a6 as Black". The chapter on the Ruy Lopez has "The white bishop can sometimes be more exposed on b5 than on a4, where it retreats after ...a6" and there are no doubt other examples. Are there counter examples of books which omit the ellipsis when discussing Black moves? MaxBrowne ( talk) 05:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Had added ellipses to lots of articles years ago, now thinking those edits were perhaps editing overkill ("Black" as mover is mentioned in same sentences in nearly every case). I see now books do the same redundant ellipses, so have reverted per Quale's undos. FYI. -- IHTS ( talk) 10:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
to:The flank attack ...c7–c5 is usually insufficient to achieve this, so Black will often play ...f7–f6. If White supports the pawn on e5 by playing f2–f4, then Black has two common ideas. Black may strike directly at the f-pawn by playing ...g7–g5.
Plus another possibility:The flank attack c7–c5 is usually insufficient to achieve this, so Black will often play f7–f6. If White supports the pawn on e5 by playing f2–f4, then Black has two common ideas. Black may strike directly at the f-pawn by playing g7–g5.
-- IHTS ( talk) 10:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)The flank attack ...c5 is usually insufficient to achieve this, so Black will often play ...f6. If White supports the pawn on e5 by playing f4, then Black has two common ideas. Black may strike directly at the f-pawn by playing ...g5.
Nf3-d2-c4is long notation while Nf3–d2–c4 ( MOS:NDASH "ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through") is still short notation. -- IHTS ( talk) 13:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Should we interwiki them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticgame ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I have just created Ruifeng Li, one of the youngest chess grandmasters. Rating is near 2600, plenty of refs found with a google search. Needs improvement. CatcherStorm talk 14:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
China is just an exmaple. What is the meaning of inactive and former? OK, inactive is currently not on list because of no games played. But former? Isn't a title for life, or does it really mean dead? - Koppapa ( talk) 06:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Some of chess variant intentors designed three-player chesses on rectangular boards. But none of them are refered in the wikipedian article three-player chess. -- Ticgame ( talk) 13:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Slav Indian Defence for 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c6 is actually an accepted name. Maybe Kudischewitsch Gambit, which I set up as a redirect, should actually be the primary article? 3.Nf3 b5!? is rare but it has bean played by Ian Rogers, Oleg Chernikov, Luke McShane and others. This is one of the few lines after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c6 that has any independent significance, other than that it's just an unusual move order for getting to the Slav or Old Indian (or maybe King's Indian). Note that Draft:Kudischewitsch_Gambit also exists, but has a sourcing issue. Sorry, I've made this situation a bit messy now.
So, are there reliable sources for the names "Slav Indian Defence" or "Kudischewitsch Gambit"? Like New In Chess or something equally non-internettish? MaxBrowne ( talk) 08:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Somebody has written on his page that he passed away recently. I cannot find sources to confirm this yet. Cobblet ( talk) 04:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I need some help at Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. IQ125 is a stubborn edit warrior who insists on overlinking the article and overwriting correct information concerning the publication date with incorrect information. He is displaying clear WP:OWNership behaviour. MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Unlike human players, we haven't really developed any consensus on what constitutes notability for a chess engine. My feeling is engines that win major tournaments (e.g. world computer chess championship, TCEC) or top one of the three major rating lists are probably notable. Other historically important programs like Mac Hack are probably notable. Engines that are very good but not quite on a par with the top engines (Stockfish, Komodo and Houdini), such as the newcomer Andscacs, probably are not. MaxBrowne ( talk) 03:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
[7] I'd suggest that Glossary of chess not stray from FIDE chess. Glossary of chess problems is already not merged with the chess glossary, I'd suggest that fairy chess topics also not be. Currently there is no Glossary of fairy chess or Glossary of chess variants, perhaps one of those s/b opened!? (Of course there is some overlap, e.g. Chess960.) -- IHTS ( talk) 15:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
A while back, I tried to remove a completely unsourced section from Comparison of top chess players throughout history and surprisingly was reverted by an established user. Nobody ever joined the discussion on the talk page other than us two. I'd appreciate someone else to have a look. The section in dispute is here and the talk page discussion (reply there if you've anything to say) is here. Thanks. -- SubSeven ( talk) 05:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Two knights and a king can force checkmate a lone king in this rule. Do you know any other endgames can be affected by this alternative rule? -- Ticgame ( talk) 08:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Archive 32/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Chess.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Chess, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Links to wtharvey.com have been added to several of our chess player biography articles lately. Looks spammy to me. Comments? MaxBrowne ( talk) 12:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
First In the last 8 years I wrote about 450 articles about chess in the Hebrew wikipedia, and also made use of the wonderful tool to input whole games with a java tool that makes possible to move the game automatically and allows me to annotate the games. See for example: 78th Tata Steel Masters 2016 . I offered it the the English wikipedia, but for reasons that I do not understand it was rejected. It helps a lot when you wnat to show important games without bothering to create diagrams and type moves.
Second - chesswise I am an ICCF Grandmaster with my best rating 2655 (now 2576)
I assure you that the links I added are excellent chess material. Some of them are easy (for me) but some of them are challenging even to strong masters, so without doubt they are very good examples of the tactical best moves that the specific player ever played. I attach here one of the links that I added so that the readers will understand what we are discussing. I added today this links some chess puzzles from the games of Yuri Averbakh , and all the other are the same only from games of other players. How can you write that this is spam?
I assure you that I have no connection whatsoever to the creator of this website and no gain from adding the links. I simply think that they are excellent - real gems! -- Yoavd ( talk) 15:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I have a question too: do you have contributors that are highly rated chess players? You could ask them the same question and get answers from experts and then you could decide. I write this as I also read a debate on the quality of question mark in annotation (see above). Comparing Estrin (former ICCF world champion and a very strong IM in OTB chess) annotations in the Two Knights Defense where he was the world top expert and his game with Berliner is a masterpiece ( I have read his excellent book on this defence) to Mr. Harding (which I know very well, and corresponded with him for years) is impossible. If you would ask any chess expert he would advise to rely on Estrin's assessment, as he was the world expert on the subject. Certainly saying anything about 4th move is difficult, but still - you cannot compare the depth of understanding between those two opinions. -- Yoavd ( talk) 05:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Whether people have access to Encyclopedia of Chess Combinations has nothing to do with what I said. As for Arabidze, she reached the quarterfinals of the Women's World Chess Championship 2015 – based on how previous discussions regarding chess biographies have gone, her notability is not in question. The "bad thing" is that the linked puzzles add nothing to the reader's understanding of who the player is. They are just positions extracted from the player's games with no context or explanation as to how or why this was done. For instance, nowhere is it even asserted that they represent "the best of their tactical moves", as you suggest. (That is demonstrably untrue in the case of Averbakh.) No doubt it takes a lot of work to present a person's biography and achievements properly, but that is not an excuse to link to a website whose purpose is something completely different. Cobblet ( talk) 06:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I am really sorry to see this outcome; this adds to the strange decision not to add the wonderful tool to show chess games in the wikipedia as I demonstrated. Pity for the English wikipedia. I shall stay now with the Hebrew wikipedia. -- Yoavd ( talk) 04:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I've made a number of edits about the Kasparov-Polgar touch-move controversy at the Judit Polgar page. I'd like regulars from the project to review my changes and make any edits as they see fit. I know it's a controversial incident so it's important that wikipedia reflects a NPOV. MaxBrowne ( talk) 10:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Is being a FIDE Master sufficient for notability? See Michael J. R. White. Pam D 21:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I added a WikiProject Chess banner to List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer, so I am wondering if somebody wouldn't mind assessing it. Also, there's been a bit of edit warring going on there over some categories (see Talk:List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer#Category). Maybe someone from WP:CHESS whose familiar how Category:Chess books and Category:Films about chess are added to chess-related articles could comment on whether they cover the article. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest the idea, to break out of Project Chess, all chess topics that relate to non-FIDE chess. (In other words, Project Chess would be about FIDE chess, also called "international chess". And the other project, containing shogi, xiangqi, Chess960, Grand Chess, Fairy chess, etc., ... all the traditional, national, and modern variations of chess. The two distinct groups have a wealth of material per group, and are a bit alien to one another ... even to the point of, as is well known, lots of active chess players, who sometimes become WP Chess Project editor members, have preference against, or even plain prejudices against, non-traditional variations of 'chess'.)
I don't have a proposed Project name in mind to contain all chess that is not FIDE-defined chess, because there might be disagreement over said name, and, that could/would be a distraction from the point. (Project Chess = FIDE-defined chess; New Project = all other chesses.) I think maybe there are other advantages and things that make sense too, for having the two projects distinct, that I'm not even thinking at the moment. (A substantially different set of literature sources, research skills/interests, etc.!?)
Of course there would be some article overlap, e.g. History of chess. But that is normal and unproblematical. IHTS ( talk) 00:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
For the inelegantly titled article Irregular chess openings, wikipedia appears to have taken a traditional (old-fashioned) chess term and redefined it in order to fit what was already in the article (original title was A00). "Irregular Opening" is certainly not a synonym of ECO code A00. It might covers unusual replies to conventional White opening moves, unusual setups like g3, Bg2, b3, Bb2, d3, e3, Ne2, Nd2, a3, h3 or.... really it just means whatever the particular writer thinks it means, though the time and context when it was written is also a factor. It is an inherently imprecise term which has fallen out of favour in modern chess literature. An article called "Irregular opening" should discuss all this stuff. It is not a suitable title for an article about A00 openings (i.e. any 1st move by white except 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3, 1.b3 and 1.f4). At some point a wikipedian decided to redefine the term to be a synonym for ECO code A00 which is pure OR. I put tags on the article and discussed my concerns on the talk page but Mrjulesd does not seem to understand my points and removed the tags without properly addressing my concerns. The site chessarch.com isn't bad but it certainly isn't convincing evidence for the definition in the opening paragraph in the light of hundreds of years of chess literature which defined the term differently.
My proposed way forward is to delete this article (which is basically just a series of wikilinks anyway) and integrate the material into Chess opening. The space for Irregular opening (my preferred title) could then be used to discuss the historic use of/objections to the term by Lewis, Jaenisch, Tartakower etc and the decline in its use in chess literature as more and more openings were found to be viable. More eyes are needed to resolve this issue satisfactorily. MaxBrowne ( talk) 01:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#interactive chess boards. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irregular chess opening is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irregular chess opening until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MaxBrowne ( talk) 01:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I have created and started filling the articles about the team line-ups in the open event and women's event at the 42nd Chess Olympiad with information from the official website but it seems like a pretty arduous task. Help from other members of the project that are interested in the Chess Olympiad will be welcome. Thanks.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 13:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason why all the 42nd Olympiad information cannot be contained in the main article. It simply requires tight copy-editing to keep it concise and on the point. I think it's also way too early for nominating for GA status. I disagree with having an article on concerns and controversies, which I would guess is probably not appropriate. Jkmaskell ( talk) 14:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the GA nomination might have come too early and perhaps we should close it until the article stablises shortly after the conclusion of the event.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 10:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The rating bot has been down for over a year, making player ratings in the infobox display incorrectly. It turns out that the equivalent bot on dewiki is working, so I've manually copied the rating data from the equivalent template page on dewiki over here. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Elo_rating&action=history
I'll do this at the start of every month in future to ensure that the ratings display correctly. Hopefully someone will get our bot working again in the future, but until that happens, manually copying the data over is easy enough. Just letting you all know, so you don't have to worry about incorrect ratings being displayed any more. :)
Chessrat (
talk,
contributions)
16:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It is mentioned in one of the websites linked to the Lewis chessmen article that a Queen (Called in the article "The Clonard Queen") in very similar style was found in Ireland about 14 years prior to the Lewis chessmen.
This piece, its discovery and its eventual fate may make for an interesting article. But I think consensus would be needed before what I suspect would be a considerable research task could be started.
The website in question is linked below
The Lewis Chessmen on a Fantasy Iceland
Graham1973 ( talk) 13:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
A separate article is probably too speculative for now, because it seems unclear to me whether there is a wealth of good information lurking somewhere, or the extent of what is known amounts to little more than what is in the Chessbase article. But something could certainly be added to the LC article as a starting point and thereafter, if the story gathers enough unique momentum of its own ... Brittle heaven ( talk) 16:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a proposal to delete the article 43rd Chess Olympiad (2018 Olympiad) on the grounds that it is WP:TOOSOON. Those interested should !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43rd Chess Olympiad. Strawberry4Ever ( talk) 14:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Good day to all wikiproject members.
I am operating a bot that is importing ratings to wikidata I manually mined from http://ratings.fide.com/
The bot is running semiautomatic - I am checking the values it is adding to wd at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EloBot and telling it which data (which month and year) to upload.
I did not find a wrong value yet, but I am adding values to players from this query which is 3473 players.
I am writing to you for 2 reasons:
If you are willing to help me with the second item in the list, please go to https://ratings.fide.com/download.phtml, get an appropriate xml file and check if the player from that month has the right value on wikidata. The easiest way to search for such a value is to search for the fide id the bot set in the source of the statement you are checking.
Thank you in advance. -- Wesalius ( talk) 04:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I created this page to make it easier for users to find the Chess Userboxes: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Chess IQ125 ( talk) 13:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I refer to the recent edits at Anna Ushenina and List of Jewish chess players.
The editor concerned (a web address only, with a turbulent record for edit warring) has cited an online Russian or Ukrainian sports page, to assert that Ushenina is of Jewish ethnicity. The page does not respond to Google Translate (for me at least), and so it is not possible to read the claim, nor is it possible to assess whether the sports page appears to be a reliable source. The editor has repeated the same citation and added Ushenina to the List of Jewish chess players.
I am minded to revert the changes, but would appreciate the opinion of other editors. As a general rule, could such a claim be rightfully sourced to just one foreign language webpage and if yes, would it need to respond to Google Translate? And how do we assess whether foreign language webpages are reliable sources? From memory, this one had a fairly trashy look, with stacks of adverts and nothing that allied it to a reputable newspaper or news reporting agency. Brittle heaven ( talk) 12:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Mark Taimanov has died and it's been nominated for the 'in the news', one problem is the Mark_Taimanov#Chess_career section is unreferenced. Regards, Sun Creator( talk) 22:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi WT:CHESS. I came across Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis while cleaning up a citation in Garry Kasparov. The article had been deleted in March 2009 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis , but was re-created in April 2013. I've looked at the sources cited in the article and they are appear to be trivial mentions per WP:ORGDEPTH, so at first glance the club does not seem satisfy WP:NORG. Does this WikiProject have some specific notability guidelines for chess clubs? Should the article be brought back to AfD or tagged per WP:G4? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Chess/Archive 32 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I and I'm sure millions of others have been linked into a lot of articles on various chess positions and terminology this past month, and at least half of those used male pronouns by default as early as the lead, e.g. in Giuoco Piano: "Black aims to free his game by exchanging pieces..., or to hold his center pawn at e5." ⟨Del my family anecdote here as I shouldn't have had it in the first place – it was late.⟩ You know, I think chess might actually have a historically entrenched systematic male bias.... Long-story short, keep eyes open on chess articles for the whole default-player-is-male thing, especially in the lead. I cross-posted this on the GGTF also. SamuelRiv ( talk) 09:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Long-story short, keep eyes open on chess articles for the whole default-player-is-male thing, especially in the lead." First, I don't read masculine pronoun "he" to mean "default player is male" as you do, no matter MOS says about "he". (Like millions of other players, I read it as a generic, not a gender pointer.) And, I doubt very much that encouraging editors to create inconsistency between lead and body is consistent at all w/ numerous WP dictums harking to maintain consistency within a single article. (Your edits to Giuoco Piano did just that, created inconsistency between lead and body. I think that only adds confusion for readers, where confusion did not exist before. [Thus, how can be considered 'improvement'?] Editing a lead is easier than editing a full article, and can be more fun too. But that is the wrong fountain to drink from.) IHTS ( talk) 12:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
'Natural' writing...contains the best/most complete/most contexual info"??? To find "natural writing" one only need look to 6-year-olds or the 17th century: "uglyer", "goodest", "naycheur". I know, learning to write "unnaturally", what with complete sentences and stuff (Almost all spoken language does not use complete sentences – listen to a conversation sometime.), is hard and takes effort, but since you're a fan of the rules of previous centuries' grammarians, maybe it's time to upgrade to the latest release version from prescriptivist linguists: either alternate "he/she/one" throughout your work or use singular "they". SamuelRiv ( talk) 14:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, "he" is the best pronoun for indicating an example player of unknown gender. Why?
I will probably use "he" as a default pronoun if I write about opening theory or any other writing about a theoretical unidentified player on Wikipedia. -- 51.7.50.239 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
An experienced WP editor, one of whose focuses is grammar, today applied singular feminine pronoun her to article Malefiz. (Same as my suggestion above. For sure it's not the first time has been done in WP article; just the first time I've ever seen it.) Please read that article (it's short) to see how seamless, unobjectionable, clear & simple the result is! IHTS ( talk) 20:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I've just created Julio Sadorra. Plenty of news sources, but I am too busy to invest all my time into developing the article. Could anyone help me out? CatcherStorm talk 17:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I created Albert Sandrin Jr. about a year ago, but didn't know about this project talk page, and about other useful places to put references to that article. Enjoy! Bruce leverett ( talk) 02:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Useful or spam? MaxBrowne ( talk) 09:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
...when discussing Black moves, even if they are being discussed in terms of overall strategy without reference to specific move numbers. For example, in the chapter on the Giuoco Piano, MCO has "One can learn from the opening theory when/if to play ...a6 as Black". The chapter on the Ruy Lopez has "The white bishop can sometimes be more exposed on b5 than on a4, where it retreats after ...a6" and there are no doubt other examples. Are there counter examples of books which omit the ellipsis when discussing Black moves? MaxBrowne ( talk) 05:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Had added ellipses to lots of articles years ago, now thinking those edits were perhaps editing overkill ("Black" as mover is mentioned in same sentences in nearly every case). I see now books do the same redundant ellipses, so have reverted per Quale's undos. FYI. -- IHTS ( talk) 10:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
to:The flank attack ...c7–c5 is usually insufficient to achieve this, so Black will often play ...f7–f6. If White supports the pawn on e5 by playing f2–f4, then Black has two common ideas. Black may strike directly at the f-pawn by playing ...g7–g5.
Plus another possibility:The flank attack c7–c5 is usually insufficient to achieve this, so Black will often play f7–f6. If White supports the pawn on e5 by playing f2–f4, then Black has two common ideas. Black may strike directly at the f-pawn by playing g7–g5.
-- IHTS ( talk) 10:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)The flank attack ...c5 is usually insufficient to achieve this, so Black will often play ...f6. If White supports the pawn on e5 by playing f4, then Black has two common ideas. Black may strike directly at the f-pawn by playing ...g5.
Nf3-d2-c4is long notation while Nf3–d2–c4 ( MOS:NDASH "ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through") is still short notation. -- IHTS ( talk) 13:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Should we interwiki them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticgame ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I have just created Ruifeng Li, one of the youngest chess grandmasters. Rating is near 2600, plenty of refs found with a google search. Needs improvement. CatcherStorm talk 14:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
China is just an exmaple. What is the meaning of inactive and former? OK, inactive is currently not on list because of no games played. But former? Isn't a title for life, or does it really mean dead? - Koppapa ( talk) 06:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Some of chess variant intentors designed three-player chesses on rectangular boards. But none of them are refered in the wikipedian article three-player chess. -- Ticgame ( talk) 13:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Slav Indian Defence for 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c6 is actually an accepted name. Maybe Kudischewitsch Gambit, which I set up as a redirect, should actually be the primary article? 3.Nf3 b5!? is rare but it has bean played by Ian Rogers, Oleg Chernikov, Luke McShane and others. This is one of the few lines after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c6 that has any independent significance, other than that it's just an unusual move order for getting to the Slav or Old Indian (or maybe King's Indian). Note that Draft:Kudischewitsch_Gambit also exists, but has a sourcing issue. Sorry, I've made this situation a bit messy now.
So, are there reliable sources for the names "Slav Indian Defence" or "Kudischewitsch Gambit"? Like New In Chess or something equally non-internettish? MaxBrowne ( talk) 08:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Somebody has written on his page that he passed away recently. I cannot find sources to confirm this yet. Cobblet ( talk) 04:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I need some help at Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. IQ125 is a stubborn edit warrior who insists on overlinking the article and overwriting correct information concerning the publication date with incorrect information. He is displaying clear WP:OWNership behaviour. MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Unlike human players, we haven't really developed any consensus on what constitutes notability for a chess engine. My feeling is engines that win major tournaments (e.g. world computer chess championship, TCEC) or top one of the three major rating lists are probably notable. Other historically important programs like Mac Hack are probably notable. Engines that are very good but not quite on a par with the top engines (Stockfish, Komodo and Houdini), such as the newcomer Andscacs, probably are not. MaxBrowne ( talk) 03:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
[7] I'd suggest that Glossary of chess not stray from FIDE chess. Glossary of chess problems is already not merged with the chess glossary, I'd suggest that fairy chess topics also not be. Currently there is no Glossary of fairy chess or Glossary of chess variants, perhaps one of those s/b opened!? (Of course there is some overlap, e.g. Chess960.) -- IHTS ( talk) 15:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
A while back, I tried to remove a completely unsourced section from Comparison of top chess players throughout history and surprisingly was reverted by an established user. Nobody ever joined the discussion on the talk page other than us two. I'd appreciate someone else to have a look. The section in dispute is here and the talk page discussion (reply there if you've anything to say) is here. Thanks. -- SubSeven ( talk) 05:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Two knights and a king can force checkmate a lone king in this rule. Do you know any other endgames can be affected by this alternative rule? -- Ticgame ( talk) 08:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Archive 32/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Chess.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Chess, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)