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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 39 |
Magnus Carlsen | |
---|---|
Full name | Sven Magnus Øen Carlsen |
Country | Norway |
Born | Tønsberg, Vestfold, Norway | 30 November 1990
Title | Grandmaster (2004) |
World Champion | 2013–present |
FIDE rating | 2832 (July 2024) |
Peak rating | 2882 (May 2014) |
Ranking | No. 1 (January 2017) |
Peak ranking | No. 1 (January 2010) |
Career highlights and awards | |
|
Template:Infobox chess biography
Most sports infoboxes on Wikipedia (American football, basketball, etc.) have a full-fledged "Career highlights and awards" section that details the awards, tournaments, and championships they've won. The tennis infobox has a section for Grand Slam results, and the soccer infobox has an "Honours" section for the medals a player has won in international competition. The chess infobox, by comparison, is bare-bones and doesn't have room for any accomplishments other than "World Champion". Would it be feasible to add a similar
| highlights=
attribute to the chess infobox that allows for this information? For example, the additional infobox section for Magnus Carlsen could include something like:
etc, etc...
Or an infobox for Anand could include:
etc, etc...
in addition to what is already there.
Right now, the 'accomplishments' pages for most top chess players are very haphazard and inconsistent, and this could help with that. Thoughts? 11achitturi ( talk) 18:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
All of them. The world championships and their associated events are the only ones sanctioned by the official governing body of the sport: they are the only ones whose significance is largely not in doubt (Classical/FIDE split notwithstanding). Everything else is subjective – you're already showing a recentist bias yourself. Also, every one of the assumptions you've made about the national championships is wrong. Cobblet ( talk) 12:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
First, to get it out in the open, I don't like template {{ Chess}}. What a great idea, an absolutely ginormous template that supporters seem destined to deposit on 4500 chess articles. That said, I'm sure I can't kill it. I can ask that people always use |state=collapsed. In fact, can we change the template default from default=autocollapsed to default=collapsed? The more useful default=destroy-with-fire doesn't seem to be supported. Quale ( talk) 00:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I am participating in an edit war at FIDE. Both of us have contributed to both the article and the talk page. It seems unresolved. What do I (we) do next? Suggestions welcome. Bruce leverett ( talk) 14:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Lots of activity against the glossary but am not sure they're all well conceived. E.g. a glossary is not identical to dictionary which aims merely to distinctly define a term, so then is it beneficial to remove what is intended to contribute to real understanding for example the elimination of examples such as done in this edit? Another example of removal of text beyond strict definition that gave more contextual understanding of a term: [2]. More whittling down to strict dictionary definition: [3].
Also there seems to be an undertaking for systematic elimination of "1." and "2." etc. explanation of terms where they exist, I'm not sure that's going in right direction for when flexibility for future might be needed for reader clarity especially when a term can be both noun and verb, etc. -- IHTS ( talk) 11:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I am declaring my intention to delete all sections in chess players' articles titled 'Head to head record against selected grandmasters' or similar. It affects several high-profile articles so I am posting here first to see if there are any reasonable objections.
These sections should be removed on the grounds of WP:INDISCRIMINATE - "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". There is no such context given in any of these articles, and no rhyme or reason to using this collection of data. Show me one notable chess writer or commentator, who, when discussing a player's accomplishments in a broader sense, states that said player is +4-2=3 against one random player, and +6-1=10 against another random player, +2-5=4 against another, etc. You won't, because it's simply not meaningful information. Given the nature of tournament chess, there is no guarantee that players are playing each other on a regular basis, and because of that, in some cases, these numbers can cross the line from being rather useless into being downright deceptive.
There are also WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS concerns as well. Simply the selection of the grandmasters is original research (selected by who?).
Anyway, if you disagree, speak now. -- SubSeven ( talk) 00:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am very very new to editing, so please be kind. There's two different kinds of Chess Retrograde Analysis. One is the game theoretic kind referred to in the backward chaining article, which allows for tablebases to be constructed computationally. However, the Retrograde Analysis article refers only to the second kind, which is the use of logical reasoning to make inferences about the legality of an artificially constructed problem position, for example by counting the number of pawn captures, determining whether castling or en passant are legal. Both are valid and interesting, but they are different. How can the article be fixed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gresach ( talk • contribs) 08:06 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Just came across Universal Rating System. My sense, based on how recent it is and that it's based entirely on primary sources (the one apparently secondary source just quotes a press release), is that it's not notable. The in-depth coverage of ratings systems can be kind of obscure though, and there are some notable people involved with it so figured I'd ask here if anyone was familiar with it. My inclination would be to merge it to chess rating system, where it already has a brief mention with a main article link. Related: is there a reason to have List of strongest chess players by URS rating? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
There seem to be a number of Tartakower Variations (per Oxford Companion entry Tartakower Variation, 1996 p. 414). Would there be any interest or logic, then, to have an article by that name, ala Steinitz Variation? -- IHTS ( talk) 11:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a very minor issue, but nevertheless I think it should be raised for the sake of standardization of formatting.
Currently, in the infoboxes of articles for top players, there are two main ways of presenting information regarding ratings and rankings (current rating, current ranking, peak rating, peak ranking):
Personally, I prefer the second format, so as I've been adding/updating ratings information and adding FIDE ID to the infoboxes of players where it isn't already included (so that the player's latest official rating is automatically displayed), I've generally used the second format. In cases where the first has already been established, however, I've left the format alone and only updated information (in most cases neither has been established, as current and peak ranking are often not included at all).
So anyway... in the interest of having a standard format, is one of the two preferable to the other?
FinalForm ( talk) 03:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
FIDE | 2783 (August 2017) |
rating | (No. 9 in the August 2017 FIDE World Rankings) |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chessbrah could use additional participation from watchers of this page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
− Will someone look at the recent edits to Two knights endgame and the long discussion on the talk page? (I'm tired of looking at it.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
William Lombardy has been nominated for the Recent Deaths section at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. There aren't many details on his death yet - only a post at Chess.com as far as I can see. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 23:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Tang. — JFG talk 22:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.
Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 ( talk) 20:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
this move is like this... a bishop is blocking a castle from checking the king, now can the opponent move a king in the path of the bishop? can you move a king in the path of the bishop even if the bishop is blocking a check — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.74.191 ( talk) 03:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The following is a proposal to be added to Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Once consensus has been reached here, it will be submitted to the official guidelines. Please discuss changes on the talk page. If you support the proposal, please also comment on the talk page so that we can establish consensus.
Note: The above was moved from the main WikiProject page since it seems like a proposal for discussion belongs with the discussion rather than where it would go if implemented. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I have added a proposal to the project page about the notability of chess players. This is to help reduce ambiguity when determining whether to create a new article, or when it comes to chess player articles being nominated for deletion. Does the current proposal satisfy requirements? I particularly want to avoid any existing chess player articles slipping through the gaps. Players before the modern era are more difficult, but I think the criteria of having had to play in a strong tournament should cover them. Greenman ( talk) 14:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of notability of chess players, Evan Ju is an article that might have escaped my notice until just now as I don't find the claim for notability ("youngest ever New Jersey state chess champion and the first to hold both the NJ Junior and NJ Open titles") to be very compelling. This was at age 15, and the modern benchmark for young chess players is that they should be near GM strength at this age to be considered a prodigy. I think perhaps the prodigy label refers to his chess skill relative to his peers a few years earlier. But the article is well written and it doesn't read like a vanity page to me. Quale ( talk) 06:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Brief statistical comment here: if you look at List of chess grandmasters (1780 entries, of which 184 are dead [of which there are 17 without articles], so there are around 1596 living GMs on the list), you will see that the article says that there are currently (November 2017) around 1594 grandmasters on the FIDE rating list (the figure for the February 2018 list is 1595). If you assume that all the blue-links on the list are the 1066 articles in Category:Chess grandmasters, then you get a figure of 530 red-links at List of chess grandmasters, and presumably 17 of those are the dead ones without articles (some of which should definitely have articles) and there are around 513 living GMs with no articles. Some of these will be very obscure, certainly in English-language sources, though all will have some record of their chess-playing activity and the award of their titles can be sourced. Maybe someone can flesh out a list of GMs without articles, if no-one has done that yet, and maintain it in the WikiProject pages somewhere (such as here: "over 500 grandmasters lack articles on the English Wikipedia although many have Wikipedia articles in other languages")? Carcharoth ( talk) 16:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I have reconsidered this, and want to rethink the Chess Olympiad criterion, as I think the current guideline is too strict, and could lead to the deletion of a number of players that would otherwise be notable. I particularly want to avoid Wikipedia:Systemic bias, where women as well as players from certain geographical regions tend to be under-represented. We are discussing notability, not strength. In my country, a mid to low-ranking chess playing country, the top players are mostly International Masters. A player that has finished second in the most prestigious tournament in the country, and has played in the chess olympiad, is arguably more notable than a low-ranked grandmaster from a country that has many. They would receive coverage in national media, and it would be a shame to delete them. Also, looking at guidelines for other sports players, players that are the equivalent of weak chess olympiad players are deemed notable. For example, in Rugby Union, players that have played in their national Rugby Sevens Team at the Commonwealth Games are acceptable. This includes teams such as Swaziland and Cayman Island, where the rugby standards are very low. Similarly, in Cricket, players that have appeared in just one Division Six international game are seen as notable. This includes teams such as Norway and Botswana, absolute minnows in cricket. So, I would like to reinstate appearance in a Chess Olympiad as sufficiently notable. A player may be weak, but being the top five or so in their country is still a substantial achievement. If there is a strong objection to this, perhaps appearance in the Chess Olympiad along with the International Master title is a good compromise of strength and notability. Greenman ( talk) 19:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shogi#Shōgi. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_21#Category:Gambits. MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasmus Svane. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 19:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Most_Wanted contains a lot of Japanese names, presumably Shogi players, and other Shogi-related material. This makes it less useful when looking for new articles to create. Maybe we should reorganize the Categories system so that these don't appear under the Category:Chess supercategory? Shogi is of course a major board game in its own right with its own competitions and its own traditions. I always thought treating Shogi as a "chess variant" was rather Eurocentric. I wonder if the Japanese wikipedia classifies chess as a "shogi variant"? MaxBrowne ( talk) 06:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The 'random chess article' link: https://tools.wmflabs.org/erwin85/randomarticle.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&categories=Chess&subcats=1&d=5 fails with a MySQL error. It seems Erwin85 is inactive, so it doesn't make much sense to write on the personal talkpage. Sorry if this is not the proper place for this report. 89.135.154.97 ( talk) 03:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
For the video game Chessmaster 2000, one user has been making some assertions about how the game plays without providing a source to back it up. Does anyone have something that can help there? 208.47.202.254 ( talk) 15:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
hi.
(background): some of you may remember old proposal that was brought up twice in the past, and despite more support that opposition, never got anywhere. it's about adding a chess-game viewer widget, such as on most chess sites, which consumes PGN (or algebraic notation) to display and replay the game. such tool is installed in hewiki, and you can see it in action Here.
a user on hewiki which function as the local "WikiProject Chess", floated the idea to start building (and maintaining) games database on wikidata, so the games will be available on all wikis. this will enable, e.g., to place a single template on a player's page, with some behind-the-scenes Lua module that will suck the data from wikidata, such that all the available games where this person is one of the players will be listed, possibly with "click to replay" functionality that will bring up the widget and display the game.
the beauty of it is that once the work of creating the infrastructure is done (template, lua module, some JS gadgets etc.), by maintaining the wikidata data, every single wiki in any language will be able to show it for any player with article on this wiki.
similarly, any article about some chess event (e.g., World Chess Championship 2016), will be able to show (and replay) all the games automagically, by including a single template.
with all this data in place, some other "magic" is possible, e.g., a template similar to {{ Chess diagram}} can learn to operate by declaring the game, the specific move, and the caption, something like
{{chess diagram WD | game = Q1234567 | move = 41d | caption=Board after 41...b6 : extremely stupid move! how could he do it? }}
or even displaying multiple positions from the same game, say
{{chess diagram WD | game = Q1234567 | move1 = 11l | move2 = 18d | ... etc. | caption1 = whatever | etc. }}
which will display several diagrams from the same game, without having to build the diagram by hand - just state the game and the move and everything else happens programmatically, as long as this game is available in wikidata.
note that these things are not necessarily related: once this database is established, different wikis can decide to use it in different ways, such as interactive replay (as we do in hewiki), clever templates for diagrams (as outlined above), or simply to display a list of games for the player and event, with the desired details from the metadata when present.
this idea sounds compelling enough, and i hope we'll go forward with it even without if it turns out enwiki chess community is uninterested, but i wanted to float it here and see what this community thinks, and hear more views and ideas regarding such project.
peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) ( talk) 18:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
as a bonus, one of the sysops in hewiki ( User:ערן) created a module to suck the game information from WD. so now, in hewiki, one can show a chess game that exists on wikidata, like so: {{#invoke:Chess|pgnFromWikidata|Q723704}}. please visit he:טיוטה:Chess game from wikidata, and then view the page in "edit" mode (if you find the UI in foreign language confusing, add "?uselang=en" (without the quotes) to the address line. when the address line already contains a question mark (e.g., when editing), use "&uselang=en" (i.e., replace the ? with &).
peace.
In my opinion the qualification portion of a world championship cycle (e.g. Interzonals, Candidates tournaments and matches) should be covered in separate articles from the main world championship article. Of course the main article would link to and summarise the articles relating to the qualification process. We have ample precedent for this on the wider wikipedia, e.g. 1974 FIFA World Cup qualification. I disagree with User:Adpete's , turning the Zurich 1953 chess tournament article into a redirect. The tournament itself is surely notable enough to justify its own article (it's even the subject of a famous book). Likewise I disagree with the tag that was placed on Interzonal tournament, Saltsjöbaden 1948. MaxBrowne ( talk) 04:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The current AfD discussion on Irmgard Kärner underscores the usefulness of having some easily applicable criteria for determining notability of chess players in addition to WP:GNG. Since the previous discussion has gone stale, I propose that the following guideline be added to WP:NSPORTS:
A chess player is presumed notable if he or she meets at least one of the following criteria:
- Has been awarded the title of grandmaster.
- Has participated in a World Chess Championship, Women's World Chess Championship or Chess World Cup.
- Has won a national or continental championship or women's championship.
- Has earned a team or individual medal at a Chess Olympiad. [per Quale's suggestion below]
While recognizing that there are several people who feel this formulation does not go far enough, I believe it encompasses the sort of chess player that everyone in the previous discussion would agree is obviously likely to meet WP:GNG. I will add this guideline to WP:NSPORTS if:
I am happy to consider modifications to the proposal. But please keep in mind that the purpose of WP:NSPORTS is not to supplant WP:GNG in situations where objective notability cannot be demonstrated, but to provide "bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet" WP:GNG. Cobblet ( talk) 18:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: I've been informed that NSPORTS is only for the manliest and sweatiest of sports. So instead I've added the guideline to our main page: see WP:NCHESS. Cobblet ( talk) 18:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Further update: The existence of the NCHESS shortcut has been challenged at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 16#Wikipedia:NCHESS on the grounds that it is "misleading." Cobblet ( talk) 19:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
More fun in category:chess openings. Now an editor never seen in WP:CHESS has created a bunch of subcategories of category:chess openings and is recategorizing openings articles into those subcats. I don't see the value of this. Listing openings as Open, Closed, Semi-Open, etc., seems to me to be a good example of something that belongs in one or more lists and does not belong in categories. What do you think? 02:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Can I get some extra opinions on whether the AlphaZero article should include mention of Leela Chess Zero? If you are unfamiliar with LC0, it's an open-source adaptation of AlphaZero, see Chessbase article for more details. Banedon ( talk) 21:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I question whether this article is even worth salvaging. It is almost entirely unsourced and the material is better covered in other articles. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 04:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi fellows, do you think there is enough interest to create a new category for User category:Chess players by country with each country getting its own +category? IQ125 ( talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/May 2010#Finish chess diagram pieces SVG-ification|See this]].
The various {{ chess diagram}} tiles are named "File:Chess_(FOO)(piece color if applicable, either l or d)(tile colour, either l, d, or t)". The PNG files end with "44.png", while the SVG end with "45.svg". Now SVG files are used for Template:Chess diagram.
local symnames = { xx = 'black cross', ox = 'white cross', xo = 'black circle', oo = 'white circle', ul = 'up-left arrow', ua = 'up arrow', ur = 'up-right arrow', la = 'left arrow', ra = 'right arrow', dl = 'down-left arrow', da = 'down arrow', dr = 'down-right arrow', lr = 'left-right arrow', ud = 'up-down arrow', db = 'up-right and down-left arrow', dw = 'up-left and down-right arrow', x0 = 'zero', x1 = 'one', x2 = 'two', x3 = 'three', x4 = 'four', x5 = 'five', x6 = 'six', x7 = 'seven', x8 = 'eight', x9 = 'nine' }
Many arrows take up names for possible fairy pieces. (d, u)( See This)
In my opinion, we should rename arrow files to follow numeric keypad.
local symnames = { xx = 'black cross', ox = 'white cross', xo = 'black circle', oo = 'white circle', y7 = 'up-left arrow', y8 = 'up arrow', y9 = 'up-right arrow', y4 = 'left arrow', y6 = 'right arrow', y1 = 'down-left arrow', y2 = 'down arrow', y3 = 'down-right arrow', y5 = 'left-right arrow', y0 = 'up-down arrow', yo = 'up-right and down-left arrow', yx = 'up-left and down-right arrow', x0 = 'zero', x1 = 'one', x2 = 'two', x3 = 'three', x4 = 'four', x5 = 'five', x6 = 'six', x7 = 'seven', x8 = 'eight', x9 = 'nine' }
Alternately, we can assign - for 'left-right arrow' and + for 'up-down arrow', In this case, we can assign 0 and 5 to diagonal arrow. Sharouser ( talk) 16:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Interactive chess boards
We have two tools to display interactive chess boards in articles.
Yet somehow neither are implemented.
One of the issues last time was, I think, some tension and/or awkwardness over the fact that Kipod had been trying to get his tool implemented here for some time, and Fred sort of scrapped it in favor of starting his own project.
Looking at both of them again, I see no reason why we shouldn't implement both of them.
It looks like Kipod's makes sense for including a set of games (i.e. all games in a tournament or several notable games of one player), while Fred's is good for a single game or for creating a short animated diagram/gif (having made a few of these myself in photoshop, having a template to do so would be welcome).
It's pretty normal for volunteers to create different means of accomplishing similar goals, each with different use cases. It might be that one becomes more popular, but let's just get them done.
For real this time.
I've intentionally not pinged either developer here, since this is probably the 6th time we've tried to get this going, so I want to get discussion started before bringing them in again.
Here are the two main things I am not clear about:
— Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's start with something rather than nothing. Since kipod's pgn-based version seems to be fully functional and tested on hewiki, I say let's get that one implemented. We can always have a second option by implementing Fred's too; ditto a reworked version of kipod's should that happen, but we need something.
What we certainly don't want is to implement displays into articles that require users to mess with their css and/or javascript files, so @ קיפודנחש: what would be technically necessary to get it implemented here for display by default (first choice) or enabled simply via a gadget (distant second choice)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
{{pgn viewer
| 1 = <here comes the PGN source of the first game - if it happens to contain a bar ( | ), not common in pgn source, replace with{{|}}
| 2 = ditto for 2nd game (when only single game present, the games drop-down list is not displayed)
| ...
| optional parameter such as "fold" (initial display in folded state), "title" etc., depending on what we want
}}
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 39 |
Magnus Carlsen | |
---|---|
Full name | Sven Magnus Øen Carlsen |
Country | Norway |
Born | Tønsberg, Vestfold, Norway | 30 November 1990
Title | Grandmaster (2004) |
World Champion | 2013–present |
FIDE rating | 2832 (July 2024) |
Peak rating | 2882 (May 2014) |
Ranking | No. 1 (January 2017) |
Peak ranking | No. 1 (January 2010) |
Career highlights and awards | |
|
Template:Infobox chess biography
Most sports infoboxes on Wikipedia (American football, basketball, etc.) have a full-fledged "Career highlights and awards" section that details the awards, tournaments, and championships they've won. The tennis infobox has a section for Grand Slam results, and the soccer infobox has an "Honours" section for the medals a player has won in international competition. The chess infobox, by comparison, is bare-bones and doesn't have room for any accomplishments other than "World Champion". Would it be feasible to add a similar
| highlights=
attribute to the chess infobox that allows for this information? For example, the additional infobox section for Magnus Carlsen could include something like:
etc, etc...
Or an infobox for Anand could include:
etc, etc...
in addition to what is already there.
Right now, the 'accomplishments' pages for most top chess players are very haphazard and inconsistent, and this could help with that. Thoughts? 11achitturi ( talk) 18:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
All of them. The world championships and their associated events are the only ones sanctioned by the official governing body of the sport: they are the only ones whose significance is largely not in doubt (Classical/FIDE split notwithstanding). Everything else is subjective – you're already showing a recentist bias yourself. Also, every one of the assumptions you've made about the national championships is wrong. Cobblet ( talk) 12:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
First, to get it out in the open, I don't like template {{ Chess}}. What a great idea, an absolutely ginormous template that supporters seem destined to deposit on 4500 chess articles. That said, I'm sure I can't kill it. I can ask that people always use |state=collapsed. In fact, can we change the template default from default=autocollapsed to default=collapsed? The more useful default=destroy-with-fire doesn't seem to be supported. Quale ( talk) 00:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I am participating in an edit war at FIDE. Both of us have contributed to both the article and the talk page. It seems unresolved. What do I (we) do next? Suggestions welcome. Bruce leverett ( talk) 14:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Lots of activity against the glossary but am not sure they're all well conceived. E.g. a glossary is not identical to dictionary which aims merely to distinctly define a term, so then is it beneficial to remove what is intended to contribute to real understanding for example the elimination of examples such as done in this edit? Another example of removal of text beyond strict definition that gave more contextual understanding of a term: [2]. More whittling down to strict dictionary definition: [3].
Also there seems to be an undertaking for systematic elimination of "1." and "2." etc. explanation of terms where they exist, I'm not sure that's going in right direction for when flexibility for future might be needed for reader clarity especially when a term can be both noun and verb, etc. -- IHTS ( talk) 11:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I am declaring my intention to delete all sections in chess players' articles titled 'Head to head record against selected grandmasters' or similar. It affects several high-profile articles so I am posting here first to see if there are any reasonable objections.
These sections should be removed on the grounds of WP:INDISCRIMINATE - "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". There is no such context given in any of these articles, and no rhyme or reason to using this collection of data. Show me one notable chess writer or commentator, who, when discussing a player's accomplishments in a broader sense, states that said player is +4-2=3 against one random player, and +6-1=10 against another random player, +2-5=4 against another, etc. You won't, because it's simply not meaningful information. Given the nature of tournament chess, there is no guarantee that players are playing each other on a regular basis, and because of that, in some cases, these numbers can cross the line from being rather useless into being downright deceptive.
There are also WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS concerns as well. Simply the selection of the grandmasters is original research (selected by who?).
Anyway, if you disagree, speak now. -- SubSeven ( talk) 00:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am very very new to editing, so please be kind. There's two different kinds of Chess Retrograde Analysis. One is the game theoretic kind referred to in the backward chaining article, which allows for tablebases to be constructed computationally. However, the Retrograde Analysis article refers only to the second kind, which is the use of logical reasoning to make inferences about the legality of an artificially constructed problem position, for example by counting the number of pawn captures, determining whether castling or en passant are legal. Both are valid and interesting, but they are different. How can the article be fixed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gresach ( talk • contribs) 08:06 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Just came across Universal Rating System. My sense, based on how recent it is and that it's based entirely on primary sources (the one apparently secondary source just quotes a press release), is that it's not notable. The in-depth coverage of ratings systems can be kind of obscure though, and there are some notable people involved with it so figured I'd ask here if anyone was familiar with it. My inclination would be to merge it to chess rating system, where it already has a brief mention with a main article link. Related: is there a reason to have List of strongest chess players by URS rating? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
There seem to be a number of Tartakower Variations (per Oxford Companion entry Tartakower Variation, 1996 p. 414). Would there be any interest or logic, then, to have an article by that name, ala Steinitz Variation? -- IHTS ( talk) 11:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a very minor issue, but nevertheless I think it should be raised for the sake of standardization of formatting.
Currently, in the infoboxes of articles for top players, there are two main ways of presenting information regarding ratings and rankings (current rating, current ranking, peak rating, peak ranking):
Personally, I prefer the second format, so as I've been adding/updating ratings information and adding FIDE ID to the infoboxes of players where it isn't already included (so that the player's latest official rating is automatically displayed), I've generally used the second format. In cases where the first has already been established, however, I've left the format alone and only updated information (in most cases neither has been established, as current and peak ranking are often not included at all).
So anyway... in the interest of having a standard format, is one of the two preferable to the other?
FinalForm ( talk) 03:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
FIDE | 2783 (August 2017) |
rating | (No. 9 in the August 2017 FIDE World Rankings) |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chessbrah could use additional participation from watchers of this page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
− Will someone look at the recent edits to Two knights endgame and the long discussion on the talk page? (I'm tired of looking at it.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
William Lombardy has been nominated for the Recent Deaths section at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. There aren't many details on his death yet - only a post at Chess.com as far as I can see. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 23:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Tang. — JFG talk 22:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.
Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 ( talk) 20:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
this move is like this... a bishop is blocking a castle from checking the king, now can the opponent move a king in the path of the bishop? can you move a king in the path of the bishop even if the bishop is blocking a check — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.74.191 ( talk) 03:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The following is a proposal to be added to Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Once consensus has been reached here, it will be submitted to the official guidelines. Please discuss changes on the talk page. If you support the proposal, please also comment on the talk page so that we can establish consensus.
Note: The above was moved from the main WikiProject page since it seems like a proposal for discussion belongs with the discussion rather than where it would go if implemented. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I have added a proposal to the project page about the notability of chess players. This is to help reduce ambiguity when determining whether to create a new article, or when it comes to chess player articles being nominated for deletion. Does the current proposal satisfy requirements? I particularly want to avoid any existing chess player articles slipping through the gaps. Players before the modern era are more difficult, but I think the criteria of having had to play in a strong tournament should cover them. Greenman ( talk) 14:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of notability of chess players, Evan Ju is an article that might have escaped my notice until just now as I don't find the claim for notability ("youngest ever New Jersey state chess champion and the first to hold both the NJ Junior and NJ Open titles") to be very compelling. This was at age 15, and the modern benchmark for young chess players is that they should be near GM strength at this age to be considered a prodigy. I think perhaps the prodigy label refers to his chess skill relative to his peers a few years earlier. But the article is well written and it doesn't read like a vanity page to me. Quale ( talk) 06:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Brief statistical comment here: if you look at List of chess grandmasters (1780 entries, of which 184 are dead [of which there are 17 without articles], so there are around 1596 living GMs on the list), you will see that the article says that there are currently (November 2017) around 1594 grandmasters on the FIDE rating list (the figure for the February 2018 list is 1595). If you assume that all the blue-links on the list are the 1066 articles in Category:Chess grandmasters, then you get a figure of 530 red-links at List of chess grandmasters, and presumably 17 of those are the dead ones without articles (some of which should definitely have articles) and there are around 513 living GMs with no articles. Some of these will be very obscure, certainly in English-language sources, though all will have some record of their chess-playing activity and the award of their titles can be sourced. Maybe someone can flesh out a list of GMs without articles, if no-one has done that yet, and maintain it in the WikiProject pages somewhere (such as here: "over 500 grandmasters lack articles on the English Wikipedia although many have Wikipedia articles in other languages")? Carcharoth ( talk) 16:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I have reconsidered this, and want to rethink the Chess Olympiad criterion, as I think the current guideline is too strict, and could lead to the deletion of a number of players that would otherwise be notable. I particularly want to avoid Wikipedia:Systemic bias, where women as well as players from certain geographical regions tend to be under-represented. We are discussing notability, not strength. In my country, a mid to low-ranking chess playing country, the top players are mostly International Masters. A player that has finished second in the most prestigious tournament in the country, and has played in the chess olympiad, is arguably more notable than a low-ranked grandmaster from a country that has many. They would receive coverage in national media, and it would be a shame to delete them. Also, looking at guidelines for other sports players, players that are the equivalent of weak chess olympiad players are deemed notable. For example, in Rugby Union, players that have played in their national Rugby Sevens Team at the Commonwealth Games are acceptable. This includes teams such as Swaziland and Cayman Island, where the rugby standards are very low. Similarly, in Cricket, players that have appeared in just one Division Six international game are seen as notable. This includes teams such as Norway and Botswana, absolute minnows in cricket. So, I would like to reinstate appearance in a Chess Olympiad as sufficiently notable. A player may be weak, but being the top five or so in their country is still a substantial achievement. If there is a strong objection to this, perhaps appearance in the Chess Olympiad along with the International Master title is a good compromise of strength and notability. Greenman ( talk) 19:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shogi#Shōgi. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_21#Category:Gambits. MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasmus Svane. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 19:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Most_Wanted contains a lot of Japanese names, presumably Shogi players, and other Shogi-related material. This makes it less useful when looking for new articles to create. Maybe we should reorganize the Categories system so that these don't appear under the Category:Chess supercategory? Shogi is of course a major board game in its own right with its own competitions and its own traditions. I always thought treating Shogi as a "chess variant" was rather Eurocentric. I wonder if the Japanese wikipedia classifies chess as a "shogi variant"? MaxBrowne ( talk) 06:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The 'random chess article' link: https://tools.wmflabs.org/erwin85/randomarticle.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&categories=Chess&subcats=1&d=5 fails with a MySQL error. It seems Erwin85 is inactive, so it doesn't make much sense to write on the personal talkpage. Sorry if this is not the proper place for this report. 89.135.154.97 ( talk) 03:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
For the video game Chessmaster 2000, one user has been making some assertions about how the game plays without providing a source to back it up. Does anyone have something that can help there? 208.47.202.254 ( talk) 15:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
hi.
(background): some of you may remember old proposal that was brought up twice in the past, and despite more support that opposition, never got anywhere. it's about adding a chess-game viewer widget, such as on most chess sites, which consumes PGN (or algebraic notation) to display and replay the game. such tool is installed in hewiki, and you can see it in action Here.
a user on hewiki which function as the local "WikiProject Chess", floated the idea to start building (and maintaining) games database on wikidata, so the games will be available on all wikis. this will enable, e.g., to place a single template on a player's page, with some behind-the-scenes Lua module that will suck the data from wikidata, such that all the available games where this person is one of the players will be listed, possibly with "click to replay" functionality that will bring up the widget and display the game.
the beauty of it is that once the work of creating the infrastructure is done (template, lua module, some JS gadgets etc.), by maintaining the wikidata data, every single wiki in any language will be able to show it for any player with article on this wiki.
similarly, any article about some chess event (e.g., World Chess Championship 2016), will be able to show (and replay) all the games automagically, by including a single template.
with all this data in place, some other "magic" is possible, e.g., a template similar to {{ Chess diagram}} can learn to operate by declaring the game, the specific move, and the caption, something like
{{chess diagram WD | game = Q1234567 | move = 41d | caption=Board after 41...b6 : extremely stupid move! how could he do it? }}
or even displaying multiple positions from the same game, say
{{chess diagram WD | game = Q1234567 | move1 = 11l | move2 = 18d | ... etc. | caption1 = whatever | etc. }}
which will display several diagrams from the same game, without having to build the diagram by hand - just state the game and the move and everything else happens programmatically, as long as this game is available in wikidata.
note that these things are not necessarily related: once this database is established, different wikis can decide to use it in different ways, such as interactive replay (as we do in hewiki), clever templates for diagrams (as outlined above), or simply to display a list of games for the player and event, with the desired details from the metadata when present.
this idea sounds compelling enough, and i hope we'll go forward with it even without if it turns out enwiki chess community is uninterested, but i wanted to float it here and see what this community thinks, and hear more views and ideas regarding such project.
peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) ( talk) 18:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
as a bonus, one of the sysops in hewiki ( User:ערן) created a module to suck the game information from WD. so now, in hewiki, one can show a chess game that exists on wikidata, like so: {{#invoke:Chess|pgnFromWikidata|Q723704}}. please visit he:טיוטה:Chess game from wikidata, and then view the page in "edit" mode (if you find the UI in foreign language confusing, add "?uselang=en" (without the quotes) to the address line. when the address line already contains a question mark (e.g., when editing), use "&uselang=en" (i.e., replace the ? with &).
peace.
In my opinion the qualification portion of a world championship cycle (e.g. Interzonals, Candidates tournaments and matches) should be covered in separate articles from the main world championship article. Of course the main article would link to and summarise the articles relating to the qualification process. We have ample precedent for this on the wider wikipedia, e.g. 1974 FIFA World Cup qualification. I disagree with User:Adpete's , turning the Zurich 1953 chess tournament article into a redirect. The tournament itself is surely notable enough to justify its own article (it's even the subject of a famous book). Likewise I disagree with the tag that was placed on Interzonal tournament, Saltsjöbaden 1948. MaxBrowne ( talk) 04:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The current AfD discussion on Irmgard Kärner underscores the usefulness of having some easily applicable criteria for determining notability of chess players in addition to WP:GNG. Since the previous discussion has gone stale, I propose that the following guideline be added to WP:NSPORTS:
A chess player is presumed notable if he or she meets at least one of the following criteria:
- Has been awarded the title of grandmaster.
- Has participated in a World Chess Championship, Women's World Chess Championship or Chess World Cup.
- Has won a national or continental championship or women's championship.
- Has earned a team or individual medal at a Chess Olympiad. [per Quale's suggestion below]
While recognizing that there are several people who feel this formulation does not go far enough, I believe it encompasses the sort of chess player that everyone in the previous discussion would agree is obviously likely to meet WP:GNG. I will add this guideline to WP:NSPORTS if:
I am happy to consider modifications to the proposal. But please keep in mind that the purpose of WP:NSPORTS is not to supplant WP:GNG in situations where objective notability cannot be demonstrated, but to provide "bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet" WP:GNG. Cobblet ( talk) 18:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: I've been informed that NSPORTS is only for the manliest and sweatiest of sports. So instead I've added the guideline to our main page: see WP:NCHESS. Cobblet ( talk) 18:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Further update: The existence of the NCHESS shortcut has been challenged at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 16#Wikipedia:NCHESS on the grounds that it is "misleading." Cobblet ( talk) 19:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
More fun in category:chess openings. Now an editor never seen in WP:CHESS has created a bunch of subcategories of category:chess openings and is recategorizing openings articles into those subcats. I don't see the value of this. Listing openings as Open, Closed, Semi-Open, etc., seems to me to be a good example of something that belongs in one or more lists and does not belong in categories. What do you think? 02:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Can I get some extra opinions on whether the AlphaZero article should include mention of Leela Chess Zero? If you are unfamiliar with LC0, it's an open-source adaptation of AlphaZero, see Chessbase article for more details. Banedon ( talk) 21:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I question whether this article is even worth salvaging. It is almost entirely unsourced and the material is better covered in other articles. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 04:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi fellows, do you think there is enough interest to create a new category for User category:Chess players by country with each country getting its own +category? IQ125 ( talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/May 2010#Finish chess diagram pieces SVG-ification|See this]].
The various {{ chess diagram}} tiles are named "File:Chess_(FOO)(piece color if applicable, either l or d)(tile colour, either l, d, or t)". The PNG files end with "44.png", while the SVG end with "45.svg". Now SVG files are used for Template:Chess diagram.
local symnames = { xx = 'black cross', ox = 'white cross', xo = 'black circle', oo = 'white circle', ul = 'up-left arrow', ua = 'up arrow', ur = 'up-right arrow', la = 'left arrow', ra = 'right arrow', dl = 'down-left arrow', da = 'down arrow', dr = 'down-right arrow', lr = 'left-right arrow', ud = 'up-down arrow', db = 'up-right and down-left arrow', dw = 'up-left and down-right arrow', x0 = 'zero', x1 = 'one', x2 = 'two', x3 = 'three', x4 = 'four', x5 = 'five', x6 = 'six', x7 = 'seven', x8 = 'eight', x9 = 'nine' }
Many arrows take up names for possible fairy pieces. (d, u)( See This)
In my opinion, we should rename arrow files to follow numeric keypad.
local symnames = { xx = 'black cross', ox = 'white cross', xo = 'black circle', oo = 'white circle', y7 = 'up-left arrow', y8 = 'up arrow', y9 = 'up-right arrow', y4 = 'left arrow', y6 = 'right arrow', y1 = 'down-left arrow', y2 = 'down arrow', y3 = 'down-right arrow', y5 = 'left-right arrow', y0 = 'up-down arrow', yo = 'up-right and down-left arrow', yx = 'up-left and down-right arrow', x0 = 'zero', x1 = 'one', x2 = 'two', x3 = 'three', x4 = 'four', x5 = 'five', x6 = 'six', x7 = 'seven', x8 = 'eight', x9 = 'nine' }
Alternately, we can assign - for 'left-right arrow' and + for 'up-down arrow', In this case, we can assign 0 and 5 to diagonal arrow. Sharouser ( talk) 16:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Interactive chess boards
We have two tools to display interactive chess boards in articles.
Yet somehow neither are implemented.
One of the issues last time was, I think, some tension and/or awkwardness over the fact that Kipod had been trying to get his tool implemented here for some time, and Fred sort of scrapped it in favor of starting his own project.
Looking at both of them again, I see no reason why we shouldn't implement both of them.
It looks like Kipod's makes sense for including a set of games (i.e. all games in a tournament or several notable games of one player), while Fred's is good for a single game or for creating a short animated diagram/gif (having made a few of these myself in photoshop, having a template to do so would be welcome).
It's pretty normal for volunteers to create different means of accomplishing similar goals, each with different use cases. It might be that one becomes more popular, but let's just get them done.
For real this time.
I've intentionally not pinged either developer here, since this is probably the 6th time we've tried to get this going, so I want to get discussion started before bringing them in again.
Here are the two main things I am not clear about:
— Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's start with something rather than nothing. Since kipod's pgn-based version seems to be fully functional and tested on hewiki, I say let's get that one implemented. We can always have a second option by implementing Fred's too; ditto a reworked version of kipod's should that happen, but we need something.
What we certainly don't want is to implement displays into articles that require users to mess with their css and/or javascript files, so @ קיפודנחש: what would be technically necessary to get it implemented here for display by default (first choice) or enabled simply via a gadget (distant second choice)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
{{pgn viewer
| 1 = <here comes the PGN source of the first game - if it happens to contain a bar ( | ), not common in pgn source, replace with{{|}}
| 2 = ditto for 2nd game (when only single game present, the games drop-down list is not displayed)
| ...
| optional parameter such as "fold" (initial display in folded state), "title" etc., depending on what we want
}}
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |