![]() | 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 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 39 |
Could we possibly lower the threshold of 2400 for automatic infobox rating updates? Archive page explains this threshold with the fact that the full rating list is heavy, currently 7.1 MB. As I don't really know how the bot works, I don't understand either why this is a problem. My main motivation for lowering this threshold is because of female players. Currently only 62 female players' pages are automatically being updated as compared to more than 2000 male players'.
The bot creator, to whom I am very grateful for such an amazing work, says that low ranked players are not of much interest, but they probably forget about female players. I am, e.g. a big fan of Khanim Balajayeva who is currently No. 63 (R. 2397) female player in the world, but her rating isn't updated automatically. So, could we lower the threshold for automatic infobox rating updates, taking into account the aforementioned nuances? -- Guardian of the Divine RabbiT ( talk) 05:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
We need a seperated article about multiplayer chess to include chess variants for more than four players. -- Sharouser ( talk) 16:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The template {{ Chess}} seems a bit over-crowded. Do people support a separate {{ Chess openings}} template that includes all the variations? (I've also asked on Template talk:Chess but that talk page probably isn't watched) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Could use a helping researching mind to resolve this apparent discrepcancy. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This came up in connection in Fabiano Caruana, and I posed the question in the talk page, but got only one answer, so I thought the prudent thing would be to bring the question here.
Does the "country" field in the infobox for chess player refer to the country that the guy is a citizen of, or the federation he is registered to (i.e. the country under whose flag he plays in FIDE events)?
For example, Caruana is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Italy, and has been since birth. His registered federation is currently the U.S.; it was Italy for a few years. Bruce leverett ( talk) 05:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I assume there has been some discussion, here and in other talk pages, about how to handle the question of where Chess originated. If there are some well-known rules we should be following, or consensus or something close to it, I'd like to know.
Right now, the hot topic (based on a recent edit to Chess by User:MaxBrowne2), is David Li's theory of the Chinese origin of chess. While this has grave flaws, perhaps we can't ignore it. And there are other theories that we may not be able to ignore.
I would assume that the discussion in Chess should have less detail than the discussion in History of Chess. Would this mean, for example, that doubtful theories such as those involving China, Afghanistan, etc., should be discussed in the latter, but not in the former?
Analogously, in any one article, one would expect that the lead section would have less detail than the inner sections; for example, in Chess, could one discuss alternate theories in the History section, but not in the lead section?
Also, should we refrain from singling out one particular alternate theory, but just mention that "there are alternative theories", citing reference to the relevant sources? Bruce leverett ( talk) 02:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Can I get a third opinion on this dispute at the Scholar's mate article about the value of this video to the article? Thanks. Banedon ( talk) 23:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Chess grandmasters (1,141 entries) strikes me as a vast unwieldy unnavigable unsearchable mess. IMO it (and some of the other chessplayer categories) should be split by nationality (or, multiple nationalities where relevant). Compare Category:Contract bridge players by nationality for a model of how to arrange such big categories tidily.
This is something I could do, but I have other WP:WikiGnomeish projects which take up most of my time. Therefore, I post the idea here and walk away whistling cheerfully, to relax with another of agadmator's videos... Narky Blert ( talk) 22:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I have recently written the 365Chess.com page (translated fron the Italian wikipedia page, which I made with data provided by the site's owner and manager. Soon after it was tagged for proposed deletion, with main reason that it lacked references and also that it is "not important". Today I added a reference (though I think it will be insufficient), but I don't agree on the "not important" reason. The site is well known and quite good in my opinion. It has a lot of well done and interesting features and it contains the largest database online (the site says 4 million games and they can be something less, but no other online database has even 3 million. Games can be linked separately, something that most other chess websites (except chessgames.com) won't do. In short, it would be wrong to delete this page. Can someone suggest how to avoid its deletion? Thank you, -- Gab.pr ( talk) 00:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
hi all.
so some of you may remember previous attempts to enable "interactive chess viewer" on enwiki.
some previous discussions can be found on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Interactive chess boards and its talk page (i think this contains links to even older discussions).
some updates:
i suggestion you look again at the viewer, and consider again using it on enwiki. here is a list of pages with the viewer active:
in light of the stagnation in Gandt's project, the improvement in my script, which, i believe, amends the bulk if the issues in Krinkle's critique, and the fact that more projects are starting to use it, i'd like to propose (again) that enwiki will consider adopting it too.
peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) ( talk) 20:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The first diagram in Queen and pawn versus queen endgame#Queen and two pawns versus a queen is not displaying correctly. It should be White: Kh4, Qe4, Pg5, Ph6; Black: Kh8, Qd7. I can't get it right. Is it because of the new align to put two diagrams together? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
fen=
parameter of the template, than to count dozens and dozens of pipes (i.e., |
signs). compare {{Chess diagram small
|tright
|Lomonosov Tablebases
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | |pd|kd|qd
| | | | | | | |
|pl| | | | | | |
| |kl| | | | |ql|
| | | | | | | |
|pl| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|<center>White mates in 297.</center>
}}
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 |
{{Chess diagram
| fen = 8/5pkq/8/P7/1K4Q1/8/P7/8
| align = tright
| header = Lomonosov Tablebases
| footer = <center>White mates in 297.</center>
| size = 22
}}
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 |
See Talk:Glossary_of_chess - should "confirmation bias" be included in a glossary of chess terms? I could try a RFC but I prefer to keep it within wikiproject chess. I fear if I continue the discussion with User:Hollarbohem and User:Quale I will simply end up looking for arguments to back up my preconceived opinion. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 00:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
At King and pawn versus king endgame an anonomous editor removing referenced material and added un-referenced material. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I have just added FIDE IDs to List of chess grandmasters. I'd like to collaborate to make further improvements, see Talk:List of chess grandmasters#Improving the table of GMs for what I have in mind. The really interesting work is writing some simple programs to help automate discovery of new GMs from FIDE data to add to the table. (I wanted FIDE ID in the table to make it easier to match our table entries to FIDE records.) The article also needs help to verify and cite the table entries. Quale ( talk) 08:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
standard_jan18frl_xml.xml
has a few entries where the players have no names. This is quite a trick. For an official file distributed in 2018 I expect a higher standard.
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:History of chess#Greco-Roman origin of chess.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
10:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about language such as "La Bourdonnais was considered to be the unofficial World Chess Champion from 1821". Was considered by who? I don't think Wikipedia should be writing this. The concept of a world chess champion didn't really exist in 1821, so stating that he was considered to be the WC isn't good. Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais is not the only article affected as there are similar claims introduced in other articles concerning the strongest players before Steinitz. The description in World Chess Championship#Unofficial champions (pre-1886) is more circumspect and historically accurate. Quale ( talk) 03:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Evaluation function probably isn't Stub class any more. It's Start class. Can I fix this myself, or does a member of this group need to fix it? Sbalfour ( talk) 19:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
FYI:
the proposal to activate pgn viewer in enwiki is discussed now (yet again) in WP:VPT ("Enable chess PGN viewer as default gadget for chess articles"). if you are interested, weigh in with your nay or yay.
peace.
data-config
attribute, containing the configuration. this allows the template to control the behavior of the script, and one of the controllable "behaviors" is notation substitution, so if 0-0 is desired, np.I got this script worked in the Russian Wikipedia, Russian Wikinews and Ukrainian Wikipedia. Also I failed to do this in the French Wikipedia. Nobody claimed that something didn't work ("O-O" or "O-O-O" or something else). Раммон ( talk) 06:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
UPDATE: the proposal was archived without implementation from Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard. not versed in enwiki policy and politics, but basically, as far as i understand, even though this proposal was supported, practically unanimously by the community, no interface admin chose to implement it, and it aged out of the noticeboard. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) ( talk) 16:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the gadget routein response to Writ Keeper). I think the principle disagreement is really whether common.js should be modified to load this gadget specifically, or whether it should be modified to load generic gadgets of which this pgn viewer is one. Wug· a·po·des 18:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Where is the discussion of the renaming of category Women's World Chess Champions to Women's World Chess Championship Winners? I don't know how to find these things. The first I knew about it was when some articles on my watchlist got their category renamed.
Is the category World Chess Champions going to be, or has it been, renamed to World Chess Championship Winners?
What about other sports? Bruce leverett ( talk) 15:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I have a question about section anchors. What is the purpose of edits like this one to add a section anchors? I realize this is old news and we have these all over our chess opening articles now, but I don't understand why. Yes, I get that it's inconvenient to link to [[Indian Defence#Nimzo-Indian Defence: 3.Nc3 Bb4]] and I can see the appeal of mechanically creating nicer anchor shortcuts and gnoming edits can be kind of relaxing. But there are issues:
Quale ( talk) 23:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
takes space from the already limited length of the edit summary", I did some test edits, & maybe inconsistent w/ WP:ES#The 500-character limit (not sure), I get 388 numeric chars for an editsum regardless the length of the secname plus length of anchors ( [5] [6]), whereas I got variable (430 to 490 chars [7] [8]) when editsum was alpha only (maybe xplained by the different secnames/anchors involved). -- IHTS ( talk) 04:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
What is the purpose to add a section anchors?", yes, the sole purpose is/was convenience (e.g. who wants to link to [[Ruy Lopez#Modern Arkhangelsk Defence: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5]] when [[Ruy Lopez#Modern Arkhangelsk Defence]] is available). -- IHTS ( talk) 05:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
we can't realistically tell if it's in use", doesn't that apply equally to section names? (If so, just as flexible/inflexible to change as secnames thus no "forever" maintenance.) -- IHTS ( talk) 05:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
clutters the wikitext", lots of article-invisible things clutter wikitext in WP articles, e.g. citations. In every case when I added secname anchor, I put it to the right of secname, not the left as others have done, so the secname remains detectable in wikitext reading left to right. Also the secname w/ anchor still occupies only one horizontal line in wikitext (I doubt there is even one example that occupies more than one line). -- IHTS ( talk) 05:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Shows up in the edit summary line every time someone does a section edit. This is fugly." Yes, it is ugly. (I think the ultimate solution to that, however, would be a s/w change that excludes displaying {{anchor|...}} pointlessly, whenever found in the processing of an edit. Rather than bending to poor s/w design. There must be a venue for submitting s/w change requests, I've never done so before but w/ be glad to explore it, submit one, to get the tech dept's feedback & return here to share.) -- IHTS ( talk) 05:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Why would anyone ever want to link [[Indian Defence#Nimzo-Indian Defence: 3.Nc3 Bb4]]". Someone might, & I didn't want them to be pissed off having to specify the extra ": 3.Nc3 Bb4" when other secnames in the same article carry the natural anchor shortcuts. -- IHTS ( talk) 05:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
A drawback of this approach is that having a template in the section header causes problems with the edit summary window each time that a section edit is done for this section. ... Within section titles, it may be preferable to simply use direct HTML, which may be achieved by substitution like this: == {{subst:anchor|Foo bar}} Foo == which is saved into the article as: == <span id="Foo bar"></span> Foo == This provides the stable, linkable anchor, but without the edit problem.
Specify again what are "obvious current costs
". (Your contention anchor templates "clutter wikicode" is idiotic and makes no sense - the addition of an anchor template doesn't even add one line to the wikicode. That the anchor code shows up in the editbox doesn't meaningfully subtract from avail length for editsums, so that was an idiotic argument too and also makes no sense. Apparently the cost you are most having a cow about is having the anchor code show up in the editbox and in article edit histories?) Specify succinctly rather than having an idiotic fit on the Talk page. --
IHTS (
talk)
08:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, explain "needed" in "they can add an convenience anchor if needed
". (To suggest an anchor can be "needed", without letting know how or why, while simultaneously shouting down openings articles natural-name secname anchors, is idiotic and makes no sense.) --
IHTS (
talk)
09:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
BTW, & FYI, the "reality" is, most all openings articles w/ secnames consisting of natural name plus colon plus notated moves, have natural-name anchors today. (Can think of no major exceptions.) And that has been the "reality" for some time (maybe essentially years). -- IHTS ( talk) 09:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, yes, I remembered copy & paste, after or perhaps while writing my comment. That's the sensible way to cite sections, but how often have I actually used that method?
I am also familiar with YAGNI though I didn't know the acronym. Programmers have a tendency to write stuff they might need someday. Perhaps even the more experienced they are, the more they acquire that bad habit.
I would not recommend that we get too heated up over this issue. Although I am frequently shocked at how much of the Web is copied from Wikipedia, thank goodness they do not copy our source. Bruce leverett ( talk) 12:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
To Quale's "Unless you are advocating that the section anchors should be pre-created with "Gambit", "Countergambit", "Counter Gambit", "Defense", "Defence", "Attack", "Reversed", and every other possible variation that applies in the particular context
", I have resolved or eliminated that issue, by changing the secname (and article name) to the OCC (1996) name of "Blumenfeld Countergambit". (Therefore, the fuss re that is now a red herring non-issue. Openings variations names are either OCC names, or names from RSs that override the OCC name, depending on sources. But there is *one name* in any event, with synonym names possibly, but those synonym names can or don't have to be additional anchors or REDIRECTs - whatever.) So to make that particular openings variation name an issue is ... idiotic, and makes no sense. --
IHTS (
talk)
12:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
FYI, today went thru *every* openings article containing anchor(s) & reduced shortcut specifications such that no anchor contains more than one shortcut name (the section title natural name portion). (Namely, in Bird's Opening, English Opening, Indian Defence, Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation, Sicilian Defence, Scheveningen Variation, Pirc Defence, Caro–Kann Defence, Sicilian Defence, French Defence, Danish Gambit, Vienna Game, King's Gambit, Philidor Defence, Petrov's Defence, Giuoco Piano, Two Knights Defense, Ruy Lopez, Blackmar–Diemer Gambit, Slav Defense, Queen's Gambit Accepted, Semi-Slav Defense, Grünfeld Defence, Nimzo-Indian Defence, and King's Indian Defence, Sämisch Variation.) -- IHTS ( talk) 09:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Another way to do (for no extended text in edit box when editing the sec) is to place anchor above & out of the sec title wikicode altogether, as someone did at article Fast chess by placing {{anchor|Rapid|Rapid chess|Rapid play}} above secname ===Rapid (FIDE) or quick (USCF)===. -- IHTS ( talk) 03:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The use of online chess databases as sources is troublesome. This is not a new observation as concerns have been discussed on this chess project talk page in the past. I think previous discussions were primarily concerned with use of online games databases to compile lifetime records in chessplayer bios. Here my concern is use of chess games and openings databases to provide win/loss statistics for chess opening articles. I see five issues with online chess databases when used as sources for wikipedia. Online chess databases are:
Some chess editors have disputed concerns 1 and 2 asserting that the online databases are complete and accurate. I disagree, especially for older games, but these are not the key issues with use in chess opening articles.
Concern 3 is that the selection of games is indiscriminate and games from all sources may be included. When used in Wikipedia results are not characterized by player rating, time control, etc. Often chess writers will restrict their attention to games by strong players (say IMs or GMs) and may often prefer games played at classical time controls to blitz games, but that isn't done when presenting win/loss numbers in Wikipedia.
Concern 4 is that the evidence from the the databases is insufficient for the claims made. Durkin Opening was recently edited to add the claim "The Durkin Opening has the highest win percentage of all first moves for white in both the Chessgames.com and Chess365.com opening databases." This was a good faith edit and in fact it is true (although we would write "White" rather than "white"), but it lacks important detail relating the the significance of the claim. Chessgames.com has 25 games starting with 1.Na3 and chess365.com has 32 games. This is far too small a sample to draw any conclusion about chances to win or lose. A single additional game added to the database could change the results by 3 or 4 percent. I don't know the precise minimum number of games necessary for the database results to be relevant, but I am skeptical about the significance of any such statistics based on less than a thousand games.
Concern 5 may be hard for some editors to understand or accept, but for me it is the absolutely fatal flaw for most uses of online databases to give win/loss percentages. The database results are not verifiable. The databases are not static so in a year or month or possibly even a week or a day there will be no way to verify that the claim in the article was ever true. What is really needed is for the database search to be recorded in another reliable source and Wikipedia can report that. Ironically the older databases on CD or DVD do better here. Although they will never be up to date, a claim made about the games database distributed on the Fritz 8 CDs could be verified in a way that is simply not possible for an online database. Quale ( talk) 20:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
our best available sources suggest that the Durkin opening is the chess opening with the highest win percentage, which compares the win percentages of different openings. But since the openings are used in all sorts of different circumstances, the win percentages can't be compared. I fully agree that reliable sources, as always, are the appropriate basis for content in a Wikipedia article. isaacl ( talk) 03:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
A requested move regarding upper and lower casing of multiple chess pages is open at Talk:Three-Man Chess#Requested move 28 October 2019. Randy Kryn ( talk) 10:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The project has nearly 5400 articles now (see WP:CHESS for a count of articles marked with {{ WikiProject Chess}} on the talk page). I didn't notice when the 5000 article milestone was reached. The project had 4000 articles in 2013. Earlier milestones are recorded in WP:CHESS#Milestones. Thanks to every chess editor, and especially those responsible for the recent surge in new chess biographies. Quale ( talk) 05:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Several dozen requested moves at Talk:David Pritchard (chess player). Bruce leverett ( talk) 02:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
A "Did You Know" nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Carissa Yip could use attention from a chess editor. Anyone interested, please weigh in. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:00, 8 December 2019 (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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 39 |
Could we possibly lower the threshold of 2400 for automatic infobox rating updates? Archive page explains this threshold with the fact that the full rating list is heavy, currently 7.1 MB. As I don't really know how the bot works, I don't understand either why this is a problem. My main motivation for lowering this threshold is because of female players. Currently only 62 female players' pages are automatically being updated as compared to more than 2000 male players'.
The bot creator, to whom I am very grateful for such an amazing work, says that low ranked players are not of much interest, but they probably forget about female players. I am, e.g. a big fan of Khanim Balajayeva who is currently No. 63 (R. 2397) female player in the world, but her rating isn't updated automatically. So, could we lower the threshold for automatic infobox rating updates, taking into account the aforementioned nuances? -- Guardian of the Divine RabbiT ( talk) 05:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
We need a seperated article about multiplayer chess to include chess variants for more than four players. -- Sharouser ( talk) 16:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The template {{ Chess}} seems a bit over-crowded. Do people support a separate {{ Chess openings}} template that includes all the variations? (I've also asked on Template talk:Chess but that talk page probably isn't watched) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Could use a helping researching mind to resolve this apparent discrepcancy. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This came up in connection in Fabiano Caruana, and I posed the question in the talk page, but got only one answer, so I thought the prudent thing would be to bring the question here.
Does the "country" field in the infobox for chess player refer to the country that the guy is a citizen of, or the federation he is registered to (i.e. the country under whose flag he plays in FIDE events)?
For example, Caruana is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Italy, and has been since birth. His registered federation is currently the U.S.; it was Italy for a few years. Bruce leverett ( talk) 05:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I assume there has been some discussion, here and in other talk pages, about how to handle the question of where Chess originated. If there are some well-known rules we should be following, or consensus or something close to it, I'd like to know.
Right now, the hot topic (based on a recent edit to Chess by User:MaxBrowne2), is David Li's theory of the Chinese origin of chess. While this has grave flaws, perhaps we can't ignore it. And there are other theories that we may not be able to ignore.
I would assume that the discussion in Chess should have less detail than the discussion in History of Chess. Would this mean, for example, that doubtful theories such as those involving China, Afghanistan, etc., should be discussed in the latter, but not in the former?
Analogously, in any one article, one would expect that the lead section would have less detail than the inner sections; for example, in Chess, could one discuss alternate theories in the History section, but not in the lead section?
Also, should we refrain from singling out one particular alternate theory, but just mention that "there are alternative theories", citing reference to the relevant sources? Bruce leverett ( talk) 02:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Can I get a third opinion on this dispute at the Scholar's mate article about the value of this video to the article? Thanks. Banedon ( talk) 23:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Chess grandmasters (1,141 entries) strikes me as a vast unwieldy unnavigable unsearchable mess. IMO it (and some of the other chessplayer categories) should be split by nationality (or, multiple nationalities where relevant). Compare Category:Contract bridge players by nationality for a model of how to arrange such big categories tidily.
This is something I could do, but I have other WP:WikiGnomeish projects which take up most of my time. Therefore, I post the idea here and walk away whistling cheerfully, to relax with another of agadmator's videos... Narky Blert ( talk) 22:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I have recently written the 365Chess.com page (translated fron the Italian wikipedia page, which I made with data provided by the site's owner and manager. Soon after it was tagged for proposed deletion, with main reason that it lacked references and also that it is "not important". Today I added a reference (though I think it will be insufficient), but I don't agree on the "not important" reason. The site is well known and quite good in my opinion. It has a lot of well done and interesting features and it contains the largest database online (the site says 4 million games and they can be something less, but no other online database has even 3 million. Games can be linked separately, something that most other chess websites (except chessgames.com) won't do. In short, it would be wrong to delete this page. Can someone suggest how to avoid its deletion? Thank you, -- Gab.pr ( talk) 00:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
hi all.
so some of you may remember previous attempts to enable "interactive chess viewer" on enwiki.
some previous discussions can be found on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Interactive chess boards and its talk page (i think this contains links to even older discussions).
some updates:
i suggestion you look again at the viewer, and consider again using it on enwiki. here is a list of pages with the viewer active:
in light of the stagnation in Gandt's project, the improvement in my script, which, i believe, amends the bulk if the issues in Krinkle's critique, and the fact that more projects are starting to use it, i'd like to propose (again) that enwiki will consider adopting it too.
peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) ( talk) 20:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The first diagram in Queen and pawn versus queen endgame#Queen and two pawns versus a queen is not displaying correctly. It should be White: Kh4, Qe4, Pg5, Ph6; Black: Kh8, Qd7. I can't get it right. Is it because of the new align to put two diagrams together? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
fen=
parameter of the template, than to count dozens and dozens of pipes (i.e., |
signs). compare {{Chess diagram small
|tright
|Lomonosov Tablebases
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | |pd|kd|qd
| | | | | | | |
|pl| | | | | | |
| |kl| | | | |ql|
| | | | | | | |
|pl| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|<center>White mates in 297.</center>
}}
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 |
{{Chess diagram
| fen = 8/5pkq/8/P7/1K4Q1/8/P7/8
| align = tright
| header = Lomonosov Tablebases
| footer = <center>White mates in 297.</center>
| size = 22
}}
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 |
See Talk:Glossary_of_chess - should "confirmation bias" be included in a glossary of chess terms? I could try a RFC but I prefer to keep it within wikiproject chess. I fear if I continue the discussion with User:Hollarbohem and User:Quale I will simply end up looking for arguments to back up my preconceived opinion. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 00:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
At King and pawn versus king endgame an anonomous editor removing referenced material and added un-referenced material. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I have just added FIDE IDs to List of chess grandmasters. I'd like to collaborate to make further improvements, see Talk:List of chess grandmasters#Improving the table of GMs for what I have in mind. The really interesting work is writing some simple programs to help automate discovery of new GMs from FIDE data to add to the table. (I wanted FIDE ID in the table to make it easier to match our table entries to FIDE records.) The article also needs help to verify and cite the table entries. Quale ( talk) 08:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
standard_jan18frl_xml.xml
has a few entries where the players have no names. This is quite a trick. For an official file distributed in 2018 I expect a higher standard.
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:History of chess#Greco-Roman origin of chess.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
10:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about language such as "La Bourdonnais was considered to be the unofficial World Chess Champion from 1821". Was considered by who? I don't think Wikipedia should be writing this. The concept of a world chess champion didn't really exist in 1821, so stating that he was considered to be the WC isn't good. Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais is not the only article affected as there are similar claims introduced in other articles concerning the strongest players before Steinitz. The description in World Chess Championship#Unofficial champions (pre-1886) is more circumspect and historically accurate. Quale ( talk) 03:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Evaluation function probably isn't Stub class any more. It's Start class. Can I fix this myself, or does a member of this group need to fix it? Sbalfour ( talk) 19:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
FYI:
the proposal to activate pgn viewer in enwiki is discussed now (yet again) in WP:VPT ("Enable chess PGN viewer as default gadget for chess articles"). if you are interested, weigh in with your nay or yay.
peace.
data-config
attribute, containing the configuration. this allows the template to control the behavior of the script, and one of the controllable "behaviors" is notation substitution, so if 0-0 is desired, np.I got this script worked in the Russian Wikipedia, Russian Wikinews and Ukrainian Wikipedia. Also I failed to do this in the French Wikipedia. Nobody claimed that something didn't work ("O-O" or "O-O-O" or something else). Раммон ( talk) 06:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
UPDATE: the proposal was archived without implementation from Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard. not versed in enwiki policy and politics, but basically, as far as i understand, even though this proposal was supported, practically unanimously by the community, no interface admin chose to implement it, and it aged out of the noticeboard. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) ( talk) 16:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the gadget routein response to Writ Keeper). I think the principle disagreement is really whether common.js should be modified to load this gadget specifically, or whether it should be modified to load generic gadgets of which this pgn viewer is one. Wug· a·po·des 18:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Where is the discussion of the renaming of category Women's World Chess Champions to Women's World Chess Championship Winners? I don't know how to find these things. The first I knew about it was when some articles on my watchlist got their category renamed.
Is the category World Chess Champions going to be, or has it been, renamed to World Chess Championship Winners?
What about other sports? Bruce leverett ( talk) 15:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I have a question about section anchors. What is the purpose of edits like this one to add a section anchors? I realize this is old news and we have these all over our chess opening articles now, but I don't understand why. Yes, I get that it's inconvenient to link to [[Indian Defence#Nimzo-Indian Defence: 3.Nc3 Bb4]] and I can see the appeal of mechanically creating nicer anchor shortcuts and gnoming edits can be kind of relaxing. But there are issues:
Quale ( talk) 23:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
takes space from the already limited length of the edit summary", I did some test edits, & maybe inconsistent w/ WP:ES#The 500-character limit (not sure), I get 388 numeric chars for an editsum regardless the length of the secname plus length of anchors ( [5] [6]), whereas I got variable (430 to 490 chars [7] [8]) when editsum was alpha only (maybe xplained by the different secnames/anchors involved). -- IHTS ( talk) 04:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
What is the purpose to add a section anchors?", yes, the sole purpose is/was convenience (e.g. who wants to link to [[Ruy Lopez#Modern Arkhangelsk Defence: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5]] when [[Ruy Lopez#Modern Arkhangelsk Defence]] is available). -- IHTS ( talk) 05:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
we can't realistically tell if it's in use", doesn't that apply equally to section names? (If so, just as flexible/inflexible to change as secnames thus no "forever" maintenance.) -- IHTS ( talk) 05:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
clutters the wikitext", lots of article-invisible things clutter wikitext in WP articles, e.g. citations. In every case when I added secname anchor, I put it to the right of secname, not the left as others have done, so the secname remains detectable in wikitext reading left to right. Also the secname w/ anchor still occupies only one horizontal line in wikitext (I doubt there is even one example that occupies more than one line). -- IHTS ( talk) 05:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Shows up in the edit summary line every time someone does a section edit. This is fugly." Yes, it is ugly. (I think the ultimate solution to that, however, would be a s/w change that excludes displaying {{anchor|...}} pointlessly, whenever found in the processing of an edit. Rather than bending to poor s/w design. There must be a venue for submitting s/w change requests, I've never done so before but w/ be glad to explore it, submit one, to get the tech dept's feedback & return here to share.) -- IHTS ( talk) 05:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Why would anyone ever want to link [[Indian Defence#Nimzo-Indian Defence: 3.Nc3 Bb4]]". Someone might, & I didn't want them to be pissed off having to specify the extra ": 3.Nc3 Bb4" when other secnames in the same article carry the natural anchor shortcuts. -- IHTS ( talk) 05:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
A drawback of this approach is that having a template in the section header causes problems with the edit summary window each time that a section edit is done for this section. ... Within section titles, it may be preferable to simply use direct HTML, which may be achieved by substitution like this: == {{subst:anchor|Foo bar}} Foo == which is saved into the article as: == <span id="Foo bar"></span> Foo == This provides the stable, linkable anchor, but without the edit problem.
Specify again what are "obvious current costs
". (Your contention anchor templates "clutter wikicode" is idiotic and makes no sense - the addition of an anchor template doesn't even add one line to the wikicode. That the anchor code shows up in the editbox doesn't meaningfully subtract from avail length for editsums, so that was an idiotic argument too and also makes no sense. Apparently the cost you are most having a cow about is having the anchor code show up in the editbox and in article edit histories?) Specify succinctly rather than having an idiotic fit on the Talk page. --
IHTS (
talk)
08:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, explain "needed" in "they can add an convenience anchor if needed
". (To suggest an anchor can be "needed", without letting know how or why, while simultaneously shouting down openings articles natural-name secname anchors, is idiotic and makes no sense.) --
IHTS (
talk)
09:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
BTW, & FYI, the "reality" is, most all openings articles w/ secnames consisting of natural name plus colon plus notated moves, have natural-name anchors today. (Can think of no major exceptions.) And that has been the "reality" for some time (maybe essentially years). -- IHTS ( talk) 09:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, yes, I remembered copy & paste, after or perhaps while writing my comment. That's the sensible way to cite sections, but how often have I actually used that method?
I am also familiar with YAGNI though I didn't know the acronym. Programmers have a tendency to write stuff they might need someday. Perhaps even the more experienced they are, the more they acquire that bad habit.
I would not recommend that we get too heated up over this issue. Although I am frequently shocked at how much of the Web is copied from Wikipedia, thank goodness they do not copy our source. Bruce leverett ( talk) 12:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
To Quale's "Unless you are advocating that the section anchors should be pre-created with "Gambit", "Countergambit", "Counter Gambit", "Defense", "Defence", "Attack", "Reversed", and every other possible variation that applies in the particular context
", I have resolved or eliminated that issue, by changing the secname (and article name) to the OCC (1996) name of "Blumenfeld Countergambit". (Therefore, the fuss re that is now a red herring non-issue. Openings variations names are either OCC names, or names from RSs that override the OCC name, depending on sources. But there is *one name* in any event, with synonym names possibly, but those synonym names can or don't have to be additional anchors or REDIRECTs - whatever.) So to make that particular openings variation name an issue is ... idiotic, and makes no sense. --
IHTS (
talk)
12:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
FYI, today went thru *every* openings article containing anchor(s) & reduced shortcut specifications such that no anchor contains more than one shortcut name (the section title natural name portion). (Namely, in Bird's Opening, English Opening, Indian Defence, Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation, Sicilian Defence, Scheveningen Variation, Pirc Defence, Caro–Kann Defence, Sicilian Defence, French Defence, Danish Gambit, Vienna Game, King's Gambit, Philidor Defence, Petrov's Defence, Giuoco Piano, Two Knights Defense, Ruy Lopez, Blackmar–Diemer Gambit, Slav Defense, Queen's Gambit Accepted, Semi-Slav Defense, Grünfeld Defence, Nimzo-Indian Defence, and King's Indian Defence, Sämisch Variation.) -- IHTS ( talk) 09:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Another way to do (for no extended text in edit box when editing the sec) is to place anchor above & out of the sec title wikicode altogether, as someone did at article Fast chess by placing {{anchor|Rapid|Rapid chess|Rapid play}} above secname ===Rapid (FIDE) or quick (USCF)===. -- IHTS ( talk) 03:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The use of online chess databases as sources is troublesome. This is not a new observation as concerns have been discussed on this chess project talk page in the past. I think previous discussions were primarily concerned with use of online games databases to compile lifetime records in chessplayer bios. Here my concern is use of chess games and openings databases to provide win/loss statistics for chess opening articles. I see five issues with online chess databases when used as sources for wikipedia. Online chess databases are:
Some chess editors have disputed concerns 1 and 2 asserting that the online databases are complete and accurate. I disagree, especially for older games, but these are not the key issues with use in chess opening articles.
Concern 3 is that the selection of games is indiscriminate and games from all sources may be included. When used in Wikipedia results are not characterized by player rating, time control, etc. Often chess writers will restrict their attention to games by strong players (say IMs or GMs) and may often prefer games played at classical time controls to blitz games, but that isn't done when presenting win/loss numbers in Wikipedia.
Concern 4 is that the evidence from the the databases is insufficient for the claims made. Durkin Opening was recently edited to add the claim "The Durkin Opening has the highest win percentage of all first moves for white in both the Chessgames.com and Chess365.com opening databases." This was a good faith edit and in fact it is true (although we would write "White" rather than "white"), but it lacks important detail relating the the significance of the claim. Chessgames.com has 25 games starting with 1.Na3 and chess365.com has 32 games. This is far too small a sample to draw any conclusion about chances to win or lose. A single additional game added to the database could change the results by 3 or 4 percent. I don't know the precise minimum number of games necessary for the database results to be relevant, but I am skeptical about the significance of any such statistics based on less than a thousand games.
Concern 5 may be hard for some editors to understand or accept, but for me it is the absolutely fatal flaw for most uses of online databases to give win/loss percentages. The database results are not verifiable. The databases are not static so in a year or month or possibly even a week or a day there will be no way to verify that the claim in the article was ever true. What is really needed is for the database search to be recorded in another reliable source and Wikipedia can report that. Ironically the older databases on CD or DVD do better here. Although they will never be up to date, a claim made about the games database distributed on the Fritz 8 CDs could be verified in a way that is simply not possible for an online database. Quale ( talk) 20:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
our best available sources suggest that the Durkin opening is the chess opening with the highest win percentage, which compares the win percentages of different openings. But since the openings are used in all sorts of different circumstances, the win percentages can't be compared. I fully agree that reliable sources, as always, are the appropriate basis for content in a Wikipedia article. isaacl ( talk) 03:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
A requested move regarding upper and lower casing of multiple chess pages is open at Talk:Three-Man Chess#Requested move 28 October 2019. Randy Kryn ( talk) 10:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The project has nearly 5400 articles now (see WP:CHESS for a count of articles marked with {{ WikiProject Chess}} on the talk page). I didn't notice when the 5000 article milestone was reached. The project had 4000 articles in 2013. Earlier milestones are recorded in WP:CHESS#Milestones. Thanks to every chess editor, and especially those responsible for the recent surge in new chess biographies. Quale ( talk) 05:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Several dozen requested moves at Talk:David Pritchard (chess player). Bruce leverett ( talk) 02:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
A "Did You Know" nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Carissa Yip could use attention from a chess editor. Anyone interested, please weigh in. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)