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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 |
I investigated this after recent edits by User:Edderiofer, it took me to a couple of reddit discussions and more importantly to this discussion on German wikipedia, which actually has an article on "Pam-Krabbé castling". They've come to the conclusion that such castling has never been legal according to FIDE laws. It was used by the French composer Seret as an April Fool's joke, and the theme was later picked up by Pam and Krabbé. See also Chess life May 1976, where Krabbé as good as admits that this form of castling has never been legal. Why he basically lied about its alleged legality in Chess Curiosities is a mystery. The idea had actually been published by the Danish problemist Staugaard in 1907, and this problem was rediscovered in 2013. Seret may have been aware of Staugaard, or may have discovered it independently. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 16:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
as "a move of the king and either rook of the same colour, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed"? The whole thing was only ever meant as a joke anyway, one possible interpretation of an ambiguity - I don't see a vertical castling "myth" that needs to be "busted." Pawnkingthree ( talk) 15:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. Over at
WP:MILHIST we've been cleaning up any references to a website called theaerodrome.com which was recently determined as being generally unreliable
. How does this relate to chess, you might ask? Well, the FA-class article
George H. D. Gossip has an indirect reference to that website via
this endnote. The referenced section also has another reference to British Chess Magazine (Whyld, Ken (July 2001). "Mr Darcy meets Biggles". British Chess Magazine. p. 391.
) and I was hoping someone here could check whether that source would allow us to remove endnote #12. Anyone got old numbers of that magazine laying around they would be willing to check? -
Ljleppan (
talk)
12:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that this was a requested article. I've started a draft here, and will work on it soon.
I have access to some non-officially-reproduced PDF scans of various old chess magazine issues that discuss the $100 Theme; I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on citing these.
On an unrelated side note, we should eventually edit The Emperor of Ocean Park, as the book references the $100 Theme specifically (not merely the Excelsior theme), to say so. Edderiofer ( talk) 19:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The FIDE title regulations no longer mention tournament categories. The 2010 regulations, which we cite in Elo rating system, mentioned them, but indicated they were deprecated: "Category was used for title results earlier. Now it is used only to describe the overall strength of a round-robin tournament." The 2014, 2017, and 2022 regulations, which can still be found at the FIDE website, don't mention categories at all.
I plan to delete the sections of Elo rating system and Chess tournament that talk about FIDE tournament categories. I'm just posting this notice a little bit in advance so that anyone can think of other articles that might be affected, or anyone can comment or object. Bruce leverett ( talk) 01:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The Pawn structure article is badly in need of inline cites (as of this note, the fairly long, "high-importance" rated article contains a single one), so I went ahead and tagged it. I wouldn't like to drive-by tag, but the article seems to be well-developed in terms of its listed (uncited) sources, which I don't have before me. I also don't think that listing basic info on the topic via other sources would be too helpful in this well-developed article's case, so I mention it here to brainstorm myself, and suggest the work to others. MinnesotanUser ( talk) 06:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject,
I'm posting this on behalf of a user who flagged this story on Discord just now and seemed reluctant to create an account. It concerns an unpleasant story about harassing mail sent to women in chess. I have not evaluated these sources, and some are in Russian, which I do not speak, but it sounds like something we may want to include in e.g. women in chess. For this and other reasons a section on harassment (or perhaps an expansion of the sexism section) seems merited, but more research is needed. Dropping here in case someone else might be interested: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TCEC_Season_21. Banedon ( talk) 09:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The page 2022 in chess is a disaster. It's all mixed up, the two tours ( GCT and CCT) should have their own box (not to mention that the names reported now are wrong). "FIDE events" doesn't make much sense, they have a new website for the world championship cycle, maybe we can highlight those events in the same way. Gibraltar wasn't open (and not relevant either). The World Team Championship is missing. Take care. -- 95.232.2.137 ( talk) 00:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It gets a player's rating history from wikidata, which in turn gets its data from FIDE and Olimpbase. Worth copying for English wikipedia? Template:Elo-Diagramm MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 11:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
|
MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 11:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
References
/info/en/?search=Talk:Castling#Wording_Part_2
Need help settling a dispute. ISaveNewspapers ( talk) 04:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Need help settling a dispute. /info/en/?search=Talk:Promotion_(chess)#Wording ISaveNewspapers ( talk) 00:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
(This isn't a third feud.)
Hello, everyone. I present to you a question: do we move Scholar's mate and Fool's mate (lowercase m) to Scholar's Mate and Fool's Mate (uppercase M)? Here are my main points for doing this:
Thanks for your consideration! ISaveNewspapers ( talk) 08:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Should Two Knights Defense, Traxler Counterattack be moved to just Traxler Counterattack, like Two Knights Defense, Fried Liver Attack was moved to just Fried Liver Attack? 9ninety ( talk) 10:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-03-27/Discussion_report#Major changes to WP:NSPORT, I thought perhaps the chess project should be paying attention, if we aren't already. Yeah, chess is not a sport; but chess players think it is. Proposal 5 particularly caught my attention. Bruce leverett ( talk) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that three knights can force checkmate without using their king, but I don't have a reference (and I have a lot of references). This is mentioned in Two knights endgame and pawnless chess endgame. Does anyone have a reference for this? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Jaime Santos Latasa is rapidly rising in the world ranking. I created a stub about him in March when he entered the Top 100 as No. 96. He subsequently improved to No. 81 in April and now No. 66 in May. The article is still just the stub that I created, in stark contrast to articles about other players of similar rank. I linked the stub to the articles in Catalan and Spanish that have more info on him – perhaps someone could use one of those to expand the article? Who knows where he'll be in the ranking in June... Joriki ( talk) 07:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at sandbox "Four-player chess" with proposed additions. Bedfordres ( talk) 23:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Four-player chess § Content Changes. Bedfordres ( talk) 12:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
minor adjustments to the infobox. I plan to overhall the start section, add a definition section, overhall the history section, overhall the rules section, add a strategy section, and build upon the further reading/links section. For what I plan to add (mostly, not everything is different) to my sandbox, please see that. It should be noted that I'm concerned about: Too much information to impare clarity. Secondly, I don't think the sourcing is quite right, but I believe that it is up to wikipedia standards at least. anyways — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedfordres ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title be "D Gukesh"? That's the proper way to write his name and is also use by most sources [11] [12]. 9ninety ( talk) 11:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_WP:NCHESS_a_notability_policy. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 00:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
This is not the biggest problem, but I need help finding suitable chess categories for Muhammad ibn Ammar. The page is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess articles, but it is not in our category tree under Category:Chess. Any ideas? We could create new categories for Islamic or Moorish chess players (possibly under Category:Chess players by ethnicity, or we could create an 11th-century chess players category. Quale ( talk) 14:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This section currently says:
Analysis by a chess engine is original research and cannot be used on Wikipedia. This includes engine analysis generated by posting games or positions on sites such as lichess.org. However, if a reliable source refers to engine analysis, this can be used.
I think this is not good because engines are stronger than humans. There are occasional positions which GMs analyze better than engines, but they are rare (generally they involve fortresses). It's also occasionally possible that a GM will spot a move that engines miss. Nonetheless, engines are more reliable than GMs. If a GM says X move is good and the engine points out a refutation, the GM is wrong and the engine is right. We could for example look back at old books written by world champions half a century ago analyzing some famous game, and the book would be a "reliable source", but engines are almost certain to point out tons of flaws or missed lines, and the engine would be right. I don't think there are many/any GMs that seriously dispute this.
I think this section should be amended to:
Caveat: the engine evaluation depends on the engine & the depth, so if that matters (e.g. for the claim "X move is Y centipawns better than Z") then these should be given. It's still not ideal since you also want the version used, the hardware used, the number of threads, etc., but these are the biggest factors.
Banedon ( talk) 07:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Concrete example: say we create a new article for Ivanchuk-Yusupov 1991. This is a famous and beautiful game, widely-annotated. One of the annotators is GM Yasser Seirawan, who featured the game in Winning Chess Brilliancies. At one point GM Seirawan writes "does White have a defense? I can't find one." Well he was wrong, because a defense exists, as anyone can discover for themselves by checking with Stockfish. Do you treat GM Seirawan as a reliable source now? If not, what do you write? Banedon ( talk) 12:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
When [Lc0 and Komodo MCTS] (plus other analysis and database stats when applicable) agree, I will very rarely argue. These engines play somewhere in the 3400 to 3600 Elo range, and only in special circumstances would I ignore them. But when they disagree, which is pretty often, I have to decide which one is right, and here my chess understanding and knowledge of chess engines both play a role. The default assumption is that Lc0 is right, but if Komodo MCTS strongly prefers a move that is only slightly below the best according to Lc0, or if Lc0 seems to be blind to some feature of the position or to a perpetual check, I’ll probably go with Komodo’s choice.
finding the only move... that everybody apparently overlookedIf this occurs in an opening, what you're describing is a theoretical novelty. TNs are exactly the sort of thing we do not publish on Wikipedia. Cobblet ( talk) 20:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
it is kind of a shame to not be able to include it, not that we should include it. That is, I sympathise with the feeling, but don't think that we should act on it. Although yeah, I should've been clearer.
Human vs. human games is its own niche in chess,Human v Human IS chess. Adding computers is a novelty... like adding a guy on a motorcycle to a foot race. Say someone invents a golf playing machine, and by it's "objective evaluation" it says the best golf shot to take on Hole No. 1 at Augusta National Golf Course is to drive the ball directly into the hole for a hole in one. Well, that's swell, except no human can do that, which makes what that machine is doing not "golf" (a sport played by humans) by definition, and we'd be ridiculous to say the "objectively" best way to play Hole No. 1 at Augusta National is not to lay it up at the dog leg, but to make a hole in one. I've made my point, and that'll have to do. I'm done here. Le Marteau ( talk) 02:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that the {{
Infobox person}} template has a native_name
parameter. I think it would be a good addition to {{
Infobox chess player}} if someone cares to add it.
Quale (
talk)
16:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Shant Sargsyan just entered the FIDE top 100, and the article on him consists of only four short sentences. Some more information is available on Wikipedia in other languages, especially in Armenian. Joriki ( talk) 06:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Seeking outside input for a dispute at Talk:En passant. ISaveNewspapers ( talk) 06:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I wrote the following comment on Bruce leverett's discussion page: "I'm writing to you with regards to the reversion you made of my edit to Magnus Carlsen's page, specifically the inclusion of Smyslov in the list of comparisons to former WCs. I'm not necessarily opposed to this inclusion, but I'd like if you could expand on precisely what you think the criteria for players in this section should be. As I stated in my edit summary, if we were to include all comparisons made by people who meet WP's standards of notability, we would need to list every world champion. And while Kasparov is one of the greatest players of all time, he is far from being the end-all in these discussions, so drawing the line precisely there seems kind of arbitrary."
He responded: "I do not have a useful set of criteria at my fingertips. I reverted your edit because your reason given was that you hadn't seen the comparison to Smyslov; but having restored the status quo, I do not know why one set of comparisons is quoted and not others. These appear in several biography articles of chess players. If you want to start a discussion of this, perhaps the best place would be in WT:CHESS."
I am now continuing the discussion here. To clarify, my point was not that such a comparison had never been made, but just that it was made infrequently enough such that I had never seen it, and thus that including Smyslov sets a precedent that we should in fact including nearly all or all previous WCs. 216.164.249.213 ( talk) 23:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm finding this editor utterly exasperating. He's invented a non-existent rule that only moves that were physically played at the board are valid examples to illustrate a chess theme or tactic. All attempts to explain that the purpose of the examples is to illustrate a theme not to keep a historical record are met with "I Didn't Hear That" responses. Have reported him for edit warring after 4 reverts in an hour. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 11:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
A series of recent edits to Chess Olympiad articles has added the local language equivalent event name, for example the Maltese name for the 24th Chess Olympiad. The relevant wikipedia guideline is MOS:LEADLANG and I would say its application turns on whether the subjects are considered closely associated with a foreign language. In my view, they are not. The locations are significant to the events and are closely associated, but the local languages are not linked to the events when reported in an English language source. Accordingly, I think these recent edits should be undone and the foreign language equivalent names should be removed. What do you think? Quale ( talk) 14:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I should note, however, that the articles on the Olympic Games do seem to include the local language names, so this could be a strong argument against my view. Quale ( talk) 14:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Does that help an English reader of the article?It certainly helps some of them. Just because someone is using the English-language Wikipedia does not mean that they do not understand or have no interest in other languages. With 800 million second-language speakers, English is the most widely spoken L2. Why should only bios and geography articles give local names, but not events? At least one important English-language source exists which uses the Maltese name of the 1980 Olympiad: see di Felice, Chess Competitions, 1971-2010: An Annotated International Bibliography, 3518.2. Cobblet ( talk) 04:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
At the risk of being accused of WP:CANVASSING, please consider whether we really need a separate article for this. It reeks of "internetism" to me. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 01:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Fischer random chess has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
in the same way that professional athletes have a section dedicated to awards and significant wins (championships, olympic medals), i propose chess players should have a similar section. i would also propose the following criteria to be used in determining whether something makes it:
i would love to hear thoughts on this. Ayyydoc ( talk) 03:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I made a draft for Marshall Attack. Please add to it if you can! /info/en/?search=Draft:Marshall_Attack Burritok ( talk) 01:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I have proposed that the article on the Brazilian Defense be merged into the article on the Gunderam Defense, since the two terms are widely used synonymously (including in the lead sections of the two articles). I would have considered this an uncontroversial merger and done it boldly, had it not been for the fact that a previous merger of the two was reverted by a user who seems to have closed his user account. For that reason I would like to request input into the discussion from peope more knowledgeable in the field than myself. Nikolaj1905 ( talk) 08:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The longstanding WP:QUOTEFARM in Fischer random chess has been contentious, but I think only because two editors tenaciously defend it while numerous editors have questioned it. You are welcome to share your thoughts at Talk:Fischer random chess#Quote farm once again, with feeling. Quale ( talk) 09:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The article " 1st Chess Olympiad" is graded as a stub, but it seems like a Start-class article to me. Should it be re-graded? Helloheart (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
What is the annual revenue of such a platform? I don't know the terms, and wouldn't be able to find and understand which source would be a right source and which would be a bad source. Turnover, profit... I think that would be interesting to know. If anyone knows how to find and document that... -- Joachim~frwiki ( talk) 14:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Jack Mizzi caught my attention some time ago. I'm not the author although I made some minor improvements to it recently. I think it's in decent shape, way better than its earlier versions, but I don't feel comfortable approving it without knowledge of any special considerations that might make a young chess player notable. Because it was written by a family member of the subject, it initially came across as promotional, but I believe that tone has been neutralized. I'm still bothered by the heavy reliance on a single source, chess-results.com. If that isn't a concern, then maybe this is ready for moving into article space. Would someone from this project give it a look? ~ Anachronist ( talk) 01:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I did some research. According to /info/en/?search=FIDE_titles, there were 1960 CM titles in the world. Comparing, India to Malta, India's population is 2800 times that of Malta. So if there was 1 CM in Malta, there should be 2800 in India, when in the world there are less than 2000. I cannot understand the logic of comparing Malta to India. ATM622 ( talk) 22:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=FIDE_titles#Arena_titles describes the arena titles. ATM622 ( talk) 22:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Although I do not particularly like reference 49, since they speak badly of my country, I want to highlight that chessbase is a very respected magazine and wrote an article about the European Small Nations Championships. This tournament was so important that a few days ago https://www.europechess.org/communique-of-the-ecu-board-meeting-cl-no-5-2022/ the European Chess Union gave a seat to ESNA in the world cup.
"B. European Championships
6. Remaining Qualification places for the 2021-2023 World Championship cycle were discussed and decided:
23 qualification places will be awarded at the 2023 European Chess Championship and 9 places at the 2023 European Women’s Chess Championship 1 qualification place was awarded to the Zone 1.10 (European Small Nations) tournament."
Jack will get the CM title as a result of his notable performance in this tournament (and not as is commonly assumed that he surpassed the 2200 mark). There is a special rule that a CM title can be obtained when a player obtains 4.5/9 in a FIDE Zonal tournament. Jack obtained 5.5/9 and this was the reason of the CM award. https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B01DirectTitles2017 (table 1.4b gives more details). ATM622 ( talk) 23:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the reason why the local media started focusing on Jack Mizzi. ATM622 ( talk) 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Table 1.4b refers to the rule as "Sub-Continental Individual " and in the column CM: "50% for at least 9 games". Sub-Continental is sometimes referred to as "zonal". ATM622 ( talk) 23:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
"Thanks to ECU for again allocating a FIDE World Cup spot to our Sub-Zonal 🇱🇮 . GM Lance Henderson de la Fuente 🇦🇩 will represent ESNA in South Korea 🇰🇷 next year. This also means that Jack Mizzi 🇲🇹 earns the Candidate Master (CM) title for his performance at the championship — congrats!"
This was the statement issued by MCF on Social Media. ATM622 ( talk) 00:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I have edited the article highlighting that the World Amateur tournament was inaugurated by the FIDE President. ATM622 ( talk) 00:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Finally I cannot understand the irony about the p-word. Wikipedia says this about chess prodigies : "Their prodigious talent will often enable them to defeat experienced adult players and even titled chess masters. ". Their are multiple references in the article where defeats of IMs and FMs were achieved. ATM622 ( talk) 00:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Recently Mizzi has been awarded the Blitz National Champion title and the Rapid National Champion title. Note that these were the Malta National Championships and not Junior Championships. The article has been updated. ATM622 ( talk) 22:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Rapid_Championships and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Blitz_Championships list Mizzi as the newly crowned Blitz and Rapid National Champion. ATM622 ( talk) 22:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Rapid_Championships. And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Blitz_Championships. Clearly show that these are part of the Maltese Championships. ATM622 ( talk) 07:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
The Maltese Championship Cycle consists of 1) the open championships 2) the junior championship 3) the rapid Championship 4) the blitz chapionship. As listed in the Wikipedia article. ATM622 ( talk) 07:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Another news journal captured the news as per reference [58] https://one.com.mt/chess-jack-mizzi-jirbah-zewg-titli-nazzjonali-fgurnata-wahda/
The title reads "Jack Mizzi wins 2 National Championships in the same day" ATM622 ( talk) 16:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
CHESS: JACK MIZZI WINS TWO NATIONAL TITLES IN ONE DAY by Mario Bonnici 10 December 2022
Young local chess player Jack Mizzi has continued his success in the sport as he recently won two major titles in the space of a day.
Mizzi, who is still 16 years old, won the title of national Rapid and Blitz champion.
Jack Mizzi won the Rapid with 4.5 points and a few hours later he won the Blitz championship with 7.5 points. ATM622 ( talk) 16:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I also updated the references and removed the primary chess-results links as per recommendation. ATM622 ( talk) 17:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
As to Pittsburgh comment, the two journals are National journals and they recognised the 2 National titles obtained in one day, one of which I translated using Google translate for your convenience. ATM622 ( talk) 17:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Any feedback against implementing ChessCreator's 2008 idea here Talk:Queen's Pawn Game#Queen's Pawn Opening, coupled w/ my suggestion for REDIRECT, and ditto process for the KP's Game article? p.s. See also Talk:King's Pawn Game#King's Pawn Opening. -- IHTS ( talk) 21:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Chess. I notice there are quite a few differences between Template:French chess grandmasters and the corresponding template on the French Wikipedia. I don't know which (if either) is correct (I don't know much about chess, I just stumbled across the differences between the templates), but just thought I would let you know. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 23:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I have thought of some issues about sources that repeatedly come up in chess articles. I am inclined to mention them in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess#Sources, but am running them past the rest of you first:
Bruce leverett ( talk) 21:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Parham Maghsoodloo has quickly risen in the FIDE ranking over the last two years – he's now ranked 19 in the world, but the article is hardly more than a stub. Joriki ( talk) 20:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, all. You may want to participate in the discussion that started here about the reliability as a reliable source in Wikipedia of the chess magazine Kingpin. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk)
13:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Just created the article for the FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament 2023. I encourage y'all to contribute if you find sources, although I expect coverage to be slow until September or so. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 07:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The individual Candidate Tournaments point to Template:World Chess Championships, but they are not linked there. Ideally the articles which contain a template and those that a template points to should be the same, should it be altered one way or another? Naraht ( talk) 19:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I recently created the page for the upcoming FIDE World Cup, if anyone knows of qualifiers who are not mentioned in the article, please feel free to add them (preferably with sources). Thanks A3811 ( talk) 09:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have officially disclosed my Conflict Of Interest for the following Draft that I just finished: /info/en/?search=Draft:William_Graif
Am brand new to Wikipedia editing, so please let me know your thoughts/feedback/advice/edits/etc :) have not yet officially submitted for review.
Thanks so much!
-William
Binchy10 (
talk)
07:16, 2 May 2023 (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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 |
I investigated this after recent edits by User:Edderiofer, it took me to a couple of reddit discussions and more importantly to this discussion on German wikipedia, which actually has an article on "Pam-Krabbé castling". They've come to the conclusion that such castling has never been legal according to FIDE laws. It was used by the French composer Seret as an April Fool's joke, and the theme was later picked up by Pam and Krabbé. See also Chess life May 1976, where Krabbé as good as admits that this form of castling has never been legal. Why he basically lied about its alleged legality in Chess Curiosities is a mystery. The idea had actually been published by the Danish problemist Staugaard in 1907, and this problem was rediscovered in 2013. Seret may have been aware of Staugaard, or may have discovered it independently. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 16:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
as "a move of the king and either rook of the same colour, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed"? The whole thing was only ever meant as a joke anyway, one possible interpretation of an ambiguity - I don't see a vertical castling "myth" that needs to be "busted." Pawnkingthree ( talk) 15:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. Over at
WP:MILHIST we've been cleaning up any references to a website called theaerodrome.com which was recently determined as being generally unreliable
. How does this relate to chess, you might ask? Well, the FA-class article
George H. D. Gossip has an indirect reference to that website via
this endnote. The referenced section also has another reference to British Chess Magazine (Whyld, Ken (July 2001). "Mr Darcy meets Biggles". British Chess Magazine. p. 391.
) and I was hoping someone here could check whether that source would allow us to remove endnote #12. Anyone got old numbers of that magazine laying around they would be willing to check? -
Ljleppan (
talk)
12:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that this was a requested article. I've started a draft here, and will work on it soon.
I have access to some non-officially-reproduced PDF scans of various old chess magazine issues that discuss the $100 Theme; I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on citing these.
On an unrelated side note, we should eventually edit The Emperor of Ocean Park, as the book references the $100 Theme specifically (not merely the Excelsior theme), to say so. Edderiofer ( talk) 19:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The FIDE title regulations no longer mention tournament categories. The 2010 regulations, which we cite in Elo rating system, mentioned them, but indicated they were deprecated: "Category was used for title results earlier. Now it is used only to describe the overall strength of a round-robin tournament." The 2014, 2017, and 2022 regulations, which can still be found at the FIDE website, don't mention categories at all.
I plan to delete the sections of Elo rating system and Chess tournament that talk about FIDE tournament categories. I'm just posting this notice a little bit in advance so that anyone can think of other articles that might be affected, or anyone can comment or object. Bruce leverett ( talk) 01:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The Pawn structure article is badly in need of inline cites (as of this note, the fairly long, "high-importance" rated article contains a single one), so I went ahead and tagged it. I wouldn't like to drive-by tag, but the article seems to be well-developed in terms of its listed (uncited) sources, which I don't have before me. I also don't think that listing basic info on the topic via other sources would be too helpful in this well-developed article's case, so I mention it here to brainstorm myself, and suggest the work to others. MinnesotanUser ( talk) 06:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject,
I'm posting this on behalf of a user who flagged this story on Discord just now and seemed reluctant to create an account. It concerns an unpleasant story about harassing mail sent to women in chess. I have not evaluated these sources, and some are in Russian, which I do not speak, but it sounds like something we may want to include in e.g. women in chess. For this and other reasons a section on harassment (or perhaps an expansion of the sexism section) seems merited, but more research is needed. Dropping here in case someone else might be interested: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TCEC_Season_21. Banedon ( talk) 09:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The page 2022 in chess is a disaster. It's all mixed up, the two tours ( GCT and CCT) should have their own box (not to mention that the names reported now are wrong). "FIDE events" doesn't make much sense, they have a new website for the world championship cycle, maybe we can highlight those events in the same way. Gibraltar wasn't open (and not relevant either). The World Team Championship is missing. Take care. -- 95.232.2.137 ( talk) 00:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It gets a player's rating history from wikidata, which in turn gets its data from FIDE and Olimpbase. Worth copying for English wikipedia? Template:Elo-Diagramm MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 11:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
|
MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 11:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
References
/info/en/?search=Talk:Castling#Wording_Part_2
Need help settling a dispute. ISaveNewspapers ( talk) 04:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Need help settling a dispute. /info/en/?search=Talk:Promotion_(chess)#Wording ISaveNewspapers ( talk) 00:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
(This isn't a third feud.)
Hello, everyone. I present to you a question: do we move Scholar's mate and Fool's mate (lowercase m) to Scholar's Mate and Fool's Mate (uppercase M)? Here are my main points for doing this:
Thanks for your consideration! ISaveNewspapers ( talk) 08:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Should Two Knights Defense, Traxler Counterattack be moved to just Traxler Counterattack, like Two Knights Defense, Fried Liver Attack was moved to just Fried Liver Attack? 9ninety ( talk) 10:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-03-27/Discussion_report#Major changes to WP:NSPORT, I thought perhaps the chess project should be paying attention, if we aren't already. Yeah, chess is not a sport; but chess players think it is. Proposal 5 particularly caught my attention. Bruce leverett ( talk) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that three knights can force checkmate without using their king, but I don't have a reference (and I have a lot of references). This is mentioned in Two knights endgame and pawnless chess endgame. Does anyone have a reference for this? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Jaime Santos Latasa is rapidly rising in the world ranking. I created a stub about him in March when he entered the Top 100 as No. 96. He subsequently improved to No. 81 in April and now No. 66 in May. The article is still just the stub that I created, in stark contrast to articles about other players of similar rank. I linked the stub to the articles in Catalan and Spanish that have more info on him – perhaps someone could use one of those to expand the article? Who knows where he'll be in the ranking in June... Joriki ( talk) 07:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at sandbox "Four-player chess" with proposed additions. Bedfordres ( talk) 23:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Four-player chess § Content Changes. Bedfordres ( talk) 12:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
minor adjustments to the infobox. I plan to overhall the start section, add a definition section, overhall the history section, overhall the rules section, add a strategy section, and build upon the further reading/links section. For what I plan to add (mostly, not everything is different) to my sandbox, please see that. It should be noted that I'm concerned about: Too much information to impare clarity. Secondly, I don't think the sourcing is quite right, but I believe that it is up to wikipedia standards at least. anyways — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedfordres ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title be "D Gukesh"? That's the proper way to write his name and is also use by most sources [11] [12]. 9ninety ( talk) 11:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_WP:NCHESS_a_notability_policy. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 00:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
This is not the biggest problem, but I need help finding suitable chess categories for Muhammad ibn Ammar. The page is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess articles, but it is not in our category tree under Category:Chess. Any ideas? We could create new categories for Islamic or Moorish chess players (possibly under Category:Chess players by ethnicity, or we could create an 11th-century chess players category. Quale ( talk) 14:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This section currently says:
Analysis by a chess engine is original research and cannot be used on Wikipedia. This includes engine analysis generated by posting games or positions on sites such as lichess.org. However, if a reliable source refers to engine analysis, this can be used.
I think this is not good because engines are stronger than humans. There are occasional positions which GMs analyze better than engines, but they are rare (generally they involve fortresses). It's also occasionally possible that a GM will spot a move that engines miss. Nonetheless, engines are more reliable than GMs. If a GM says X move is good and the engine points out a refutation, the GM is wrong and the engine is right. We could for example look back at old books written by world champions half a century ago analyzing some famous game, and the book would be a "reliable source", but engines are almost certain to point out tons of flaws or missed lines, and the engine would be right. I don't think there are many/any GMs that seriously dispute this.
I think this section should be amended to:
Caveat: the engine evaluation depends on the engine & the depth, so if that matters (e.g. for the claim "X move is Y centipawns better than Z") then these should be given. It's still not ideal since you also want the version used, the hardware used, the number of threads, etc., but these are the biggest factors.
Banedon ( talk) 07:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Concrete example: say we create a new article for Ivanchuk-Yusupov 1991. This is a famous and beautiful game, widely-annotated. One of the annotators is GM Yasser Seirawan, who featured the game in Winning Chess Brilliancies. At one point GM Seirawan writes "does White have a defense? I can't find one." Well he was wrong, because a defense exists, as anyone can discover for themselves by checking with Stockfish. Do you treat GM Seirawan as a reliable source now? If not, what do you write? Banedon ( talk) 12:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
When [Lc0 and Komodo MCTS] (plus other analysis and database stats when applicable) agree, I will very rarely argue. These engines play somewhere in the 3400 to 3600 Elo range, and only in special circumstances would I ignore them. But when they disagree, which is pretty often, I have to decide which one is right, and here my chess understanding and knowledge of chess engines both play a role. The default assumption is that Lc0 is right, but if Komodo MCTS strongly prefers a move that is only slightly below the best according to Lc0, or if Lc0 seems to be blind to some feature of the position or to a perpetual check, I’ll probably go with Komodo’s choice.
finding the only move... that everybody apparently overlookedIf this occurs in an opening, what you're describing is a theoretical novelty. TNs are exactly the sort of thing we do not publish on Wikipedia. Cobblet ( talk) 20:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
it is kind of a shame to not be able to include it, not that we should include it. That is, I sympathise with the feeling, but don't think that we should act on it. Although yeah, I should've been clearer.
Human vs. human games is its own niche in chess,Human v Human IS chess. Adding computers is a novelty... like adding a guy on a motorcycle to a foot race. Say someone invents a golf playing machine, and by it's "objective evaluation" it says the best golf shot to take on Hole No. 1 at Augusta National Golf Course is to drive the ball directly into the hole for a hole in one. Well, that's swell, except no human can do that, which makes what that machine is doing not "golf" (a sport played by humans) by definition, and we'd be ridiculous to say the "objectively" best way to play Hole No. 1 at Augusta National is not to lay it up at the dog leg, but to make a hole in one. I've made my point, and that'll have to do. I'm done here. Le Marteau ( talk) 02:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that the {{
Infobox person}} template has a native_name
parameter. I think it would be a good addition to {{
Infobox chess player}} if someone cares to add it.
Quale (
talk)
16:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Shant Sargsyan just entered the FIDE top 100, and the article on him consists of only four short sentences. Some more information is available on Wikipedia in other languages, especially in Armenian. Joriki ( talk) 06:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Seeking outside input for a dispute at Talk:En passant. ISaveNewspapers ( talk) 06:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I wrote the following comment on Bruce leverett's discussion page: "I'm writing to you with regards to the reversion you made of my edit to Magnus Carlsen's page, specifically the inclusion of Smyslov in the list of comparisons to former WCs. I'm not necessarily opposed to this inclusion, but I'd like if you could expand on precisely what you think the criteria for players in this section should be. As I stated in my edit summary, if we were to include all comparisons made by people who meet WP's standards of notability, we would need to list every world champion. And while Kasparov is one of the greatest players of all time, he is far from being the end-all in these discussions, so drawing the line precisely there seems kind of arbitrary."
He responded: "I do not have a useful set of criteria at my fingertips. I reverted your edit because your reason given was that you hadn't seen the comparison to Smyslov; but having restored the status quo, I do not know why one set of comparisons is quoted and not others. These appear in several biography articles of chess players. If you want to start a discussion of this, perhaps the best place would be in WT:CHESS."
I am now continuing the discussion here. To clarify, my point was not that such a comparison had never been made, but just that it was made infrequently enough such that I had never seen it, and thus that including Smyslov sets a precedent that we should in fact including nearly all or all previous WCs. 216.164.249.213 ( talk) 23:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm finding this editor utterly exasperating. He's invented a non-existent rule that only moves that were physically played at the board are valid examples to illustrate a chess theme or tactic. All attempts to explain that the purpose of the examples is to illustrate a theme not to keep a historical record are met with "I Didn't Hear That" responses. Have reported him for edit warring after 4 reverts in an hour. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 11:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
A series of recent edits to Chess Olympiad articles has added the local language equivalent event name, for example the Maltese name for the 24th Chess Olympiad. The relevant wikipedia guideline is MOS:LEADLANG and I would say its application turns on whether the subjects are considered closely associated with a foreign language. In my view, they are not. The locations are significant to the events and are closely associated, but the local languages are not linked to the events when reported in an English language source. Accordingly, I think these recent edits should be undone and the foreign language equivalent names should be removed. What do you think? Quale ( talk) 14:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I should note, however, that the articles on the Olympic Games do seem to include the local language names, so this could be a strong argument against my view. Quale ( talk) 14:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Does that help an English reader of the article?It certainly helps some of them. Just because someone is using the English-language Wikipedia does not mean that they do not understand or have no interest in other languages. With 800 million second-language speakers, English is the most widely spoken L2. Why should only bios and geography articles give local names, but not events? At least one important English-language source exists which uses the Maltese name of the 1980 Olympiad: see di Felice, Chess Competitions, 1971-2010: An Annotated International Bibliography, 3518.2. Cobblet ( talk) 04:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
At the risk of being accused of WP:CANVASSING, please consider whether we really need a separate article for this. It reeks of "internetism" to me. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 01:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Fischer random chess has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
in the same way that professional athletes have a section dedicated to awards and significant wins (championships, olympic medals), i propose chess players should have a similar section. i would also propose the following criteria to be used in determining whether something makes it:
i would love to hear thoughts on this. Ayyydoc ( talk) 03:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I made a draft for Marshall Attack. Please add to it if you can! /info/en/?search=Draft:Marshall_Attack Burritok ( talk) 01:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I have proposed that the article on the Brazilian Defense be merged into the article on the Gunderam Defense, since the two terms are widely used synonymously (including in the lead sections of the two articles). I would have considered this an uncontroversial merger and done it boldly, had it not been for the fact that a previous merger of the two was reverted by a user who seems to have closed his user account. For that reason I would like to request input into the discussion from peope more knowledgeable in the field than myself. Nikolaj1905 ( talk) 08:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The longstanding WP:QUOTEFARM in Fischer random chess has been contentious, but I think only because two editors tenaciously defend it while numerous editors have questioned it. You are welcome to share your thoughts at Talk:Fischer random chess#Quote farm once again, with feeling. Quale ( talk) 09:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The article " 1st Chess Olympiad" is graded as a stub, but it seems like a Start-class article to me. Should it be re-graded? Helloheart (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
What is the annual revenue of such a platform? I don't know the terms, and wouldn't be able to find and understand which source would be a right source and which would be a bad source. Turnover, profit... I think that would be interesting to know. If anyone knows how to find and document that... -- Joachim~frwiki ( talk) 14:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Jack Mizzi caught my attention some time ago. I'm not the author although I made some minor improvements to it recently. I think it's in decent shape, way better than its earlier versions, but I don't feel comfortable approving it without knowledge of any special considerations that might make a young chess player notable. Because it was written by a family member of the subject, it initially came across as promotional, but I believe that tone has been neutralized. I'm still bothered by the heavy reliance on a single source, chess-results.com. If that isn't a concern, then maybe this is ready for moving into article space. Would someone from this project give it a look? ~ Anachronist ( talk) 01:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I did some research. According to /info/en/?search=FIDE_titles, there were 1960 CM titles in the world. Comparing, India to Malta, India's population is 2800 times that of Malta. So if there was 1 CM in Malta, there should be 2800 in India, when in the world there are less than 2000. I cannot understand the logic of comparing Malta to India. ATM622 ( talk) 22:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=FIDE_titles#Arena_titles describes the arena titles. ATM622 ( talk) 22:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Although I do not particularly like reference 49, since they speak badly of my country, I want to highlight that chessbase is a very respected magazine and wrote an article about the European Small Nations Championships. This tournament was so important that a few days ago https://www.europechess.org/communique-of-the-ecu-board-meeting-cl-no-5-2022/ the European Chess Union gave a seat to ESNA in the world cup.
"B. European Championships
6. Remaining Qualification places for the 2021-2023 World Championship cycle were discussed and decided:
23 qualification places will be awarded at the 2023 European Chess Championship and 9 places at the 2023 European Women’s Chess Championship 1 qualification place was awarded to the Zone 1.10 (European Small Nations) tournament."
Jack will get the CM title as a result of his notable performance in this tournament (and not as is commonly assumed that he surpassed the 2200 mark). There is a special rule that a CM title can be obtained when a player obtains 4.5/9 in a FIDE Zonal tournament. Jack obtained 5.5/9 and this was the reason of the CM award. https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B01DirectTitles2017 (table 1.4b gives more details). ATM622 ( talk) 23:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the reason why the local media started focusing on Jack Mizzi. ATM622 ( talk) 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Table 1.4b refers to the rule as "Sub-Continental Individual " and in the column CM: "50% for at least 9 games". Sub-Continental is sometimes referred to as "zonal". ATM622 ( talk) 23:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
"Thanks to ECU for again allocating a FIDE World Cup spot to our Sub-Zonal 🇱🇮 . GM Lance Henderson de la Fuente 🇦🇩 will represent ESNA in South Korea 🇰🇷 next year. This also means that Jack Mizzi 🇲🇹 earns the Candidate Master (CM) title for his performance at the championship — congrats!"
This was the statement issued by MCF on Social Media. ATM622 ( talk) 00:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I have edited the article highlighting that the World Amateur tournament was inaugurated by the FIDE President. ATM622 ( talk) 00:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Finally I cannot understand the irony about the p-word. Wikipedia says this about chess prodigies : "Their prodigious talent will often enable them to defeat experienced adult players and even titled chess masters. ". Their are multiple references in the article where defeats of IMs and FMs were achieved. ATM622 ( talk) 00:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Recently Mizzi has been awarded the Blitz National Champion title and the Rapid National Champion title. Note that these were the Malta National Championships and not Junior Championships. The article has been updated. ATM622 ( talk) 22:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Rapid_Championships and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Blitz_Championships list Mizzi as the newly crowned Blitz and Rapid National Champion. ATM622 ( talk) 22:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Rapid_Championships. And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Blitz_Championships. Clearly show that these are part of the Maltese Championships. ATM622 ( talk) 07:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
The Maltese Championship Cycle consists of 1) the open championships 2) the junior championship 3) the rapid Championship 4) the blitz chapionship. As listed in the Wikipedia article. ATM622 ( talk) 07:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Another news journal captured the news as per reference [58] https://one.com.mt/chess-jack-mizzi-jirbah-zewg-titli-nazzjonali-fgurnata-wahda/
The title reads "Jack Mizzi wins 2 National Championships in the same day" ATM622 ( talk) 16:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
CHESS: JACK MIZZI WINS TWO NATIONAL TITLES IN ONE DAY by Mario Bonnici 10 December 2022
Young local chess player Jack Mizzi has continued his success in the sport as he recently won two major titles in the space of a day.
Mizzi, who is still 16 years old, won the title of national Rapid and Blitz champion.
Jack Mizzi won the Rapid with 4.5 points and a few hours later he won the Blitz championship with 7.5 points. ATM622 ( talk) 16:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I also updated the references and removed the primary chess-results links as per recommendation. ATM622 ( talk) 17:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
As to Pittsburgh comment, the two journals are National journals and they recognised the 2 National titles obtained in one day, one of which I translated using Google translate for your convenience. ATM622 ( talk) 17:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Any feedback against implementing ChessCreator's 2008 idea here Talk:Queen's Pawn Game#Queen's Pawn Opening, coupled w/ my suggestion for REDIRECT, and ditto process for the KP's Game article? p.s. See also Talk:King's Pawn Game#King's Pawn Opening. -- IHTS ( talk) 21:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Chess. I notice there are quite a few differences between Template:French chess grandmasters and the corresponding template on the French Wikipedia. I don't know which (if either) is correct (I don't know much about chess, I just stumbled across the differences between the templates), but just thought I would let you know. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 23:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I have thought of some issues about sources that repeatedly come up in chess articles. I am inclined to mention them in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess#Sources, but am running them past the rest of you first:
Bruce leverett ( talk) 21:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Parham Maghsoodloo has quickly risen in the FIDE ranking over the last two years – he's now ranked 19 in the world, but the article is hardly more than a stub. Joriki ( talk) 20:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, all. You may want to participate in the discussion that started here about the reliability as a reliable source in Wikipedia of the chess magazine Kingpin. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk)
13:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Just created the article for the FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament 2023. I encourage y'all to contribute if you find sources, although I expect coverage to be slow until September or so. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 07:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The individual Candidate Tournaments point to Template:World Chess Championships, but they are not linked there. Ideally the articles which contain a template and those that a template points to should be the same, should it be altered one way or another? Naraht ( talk) 19:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I recently created the page for the upcoming FIDE World Cup, if anyone knows of qualifiers who are not mentioned in the article, please feel free to add them (preferably with sources). Thanks A3811 ( talk) 09:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I have officially disclosed my Conflict Of Interest for the following Draft that I just finished: /info/en/?search=Draft:William_Graif
Am brand new to Wikipedia editing, so please let me know your thoughts/feedback/advice/edits/etc :) have not yet officially submitted for review.
Thanks so much!
-William
Binchy10 (
talk)
07:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)