Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 39) (bot
 
(31 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes|wp=yes|WT:CHESS|archive_age=3|archive_units=months|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{WikiProject Chess}}<!--banner shell|
{{WikiProject Chess}}
}}
<!--
The following is a bot to automatically archive discussions inactive for 90 days.
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 14 ⟶ 17:
<big>Skip to: [[#footer|the bottom of page to add a new topic or see most recent new topics]]</big>
 
== ChessableAkira Watanabe (chess) ==
 
Would someone from WP:CHESS mind taking a look at [[:Akira Watanabe (chess)]] and assessing the subject's notability (as chess player)? I'll ask something similar at [[:WT:JAPAN]] given that the subject might possobily be notable for reasons other than chess, but the current focus of the article and claim of notability seem to be the subject's chess achievements. The article also appears to be a translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article [[:ja:渡辺暁]] (based on [[:User talk:Ebefl#Ways to improve Akira Watanabe (chess)]]) but is lacking proper attribution per [[:WP:TFOLWP]]. A lack of proper attribution cn most likely can be "[[:WP:BEFORE|fixed]]", but a lack of notability can't. For reference, the Japanese Wikipedia article does seem to be pretty much the same content-wise and is also basically only supported by a single [[:WP:PRIMARY]] source (the other sources listed as "references" seem more like "explanatory notes").-- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 21:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm reaching out here out of a question that some of you may have encountered before: What template is most appropriate for chapters of Chessable courses? Is this a {{tl|cite book}} (as if it were an e-book) or {{tl|cite-web}} (as if it were merely a website)? I'm currently going with the former at [[Draft:Devin gambit]], as read mode seems something like an e-book, but I'm wondering if any of you have dealt with this before. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 03:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 
:I made a couple of quick searches but didn't find anything interesting. There is a book, "How to Play Chess Like Akira Watanabe", by John C. Murray, which I thought might be promising, but it is "independently published" (roughly equivalent to self-published). I also found an article in the Yale Bulletin about him, but it was from when he was a visiting scholar at Yale, and I would hesitate to call that "significant coverage". [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 02:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:There are a couple of Chessable citations in the London System article that I updated quite heavily last year, so I had a look to see what was done there.
:At:Hi the{{u|Bruce timeleverett}}. IWas updatedwondering thewhether articleyou Ior wasn'tanyone sureelse ofcould thetake correctanother citationcrack style.at Theassessing articlewhether wasthere's copyreally editedanything forhere houseper style[[:WP:BEFORE]]. byThe userarticle Ihardlythinkso,hasn't andbeen Iimproved guessby itits mustcreator havesince beenmy himoriginal whopost alteredand theI citationshaven't been able to {{[[citereally AVfind media]]}}.anything No doubtabout this isplayer correct,on althoughGoogle someeither Chessablerelated coursesto (notchess. theThe ones cited in thatcorresponding article) areon textJapanese onlyWikipedia andalso donhasn't havebeen anrecently AVimproved; elementso, unlessthere's younothing countto theget movefrom trainer as being 'V'there. Hope this helps...-- [[User:Axad12Marchjuly|Axad12Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Axad12Marchjuly|talk]]) 0821:5633, 2918 FebruarySeptember 2024 (UTC)
:::I did not find anything new.
::Thank you for that. I had been more or less only been using the written book text as a source, though I agree it makes sense to use the {{tl|cite AV media}} for the Chessable videos. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 18:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I didn't realize, when we discussed this in June, that he had won the national championship of Japan three times; you can see this in [[Japanese Chess Championship]]. This is criterion 3 of [[WP:NCHESS]], although, of course, one can see from the FIDE ratings that the Japanese championship is not a very strong one. The Polish version of the page has a link to the complete results of a more recent Japanese championship, from 2010, in which he finished third; it is from the FIDE website.
:::No problem. Good luck with the Devin Gambit draft.
:::The Polish version of the page has a link to an article by Alex Baburin on chess in Japan, but when I click the link I get "Forbidden", and a google search for Baburin chess Japan doesn't show anything. The same Polish version also has a link to an article by Watanabe about chess in Japan, from msoworld.com (published by Mind Sports Organization Worldwide, Inc.) Of course we shouldn't routinely cite autobiographical material, but it's interesting. He mentioned at the time that he had a "weekly column" on the internet about chess, in Japanese.
:::Incidentally, if you ever feel like starting an article on the (different but not entirely unrelated) Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.g4) I would happily contribute. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 19:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
:::He has written three beginner's books (this is clearer in the Japanese version of the page). I think that if these were successful, that is, popular, books, they would meet criterion 5 (or even 6). I do not know how to evaluate how successful those books are (were). At least one of them was not self-published. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 01:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I've got some sources that cover both; my plan is to cover the Gibbins-Weidenhagen (or Bronstein) Gambit next, after I can finish up the section on the 4. Nxg4 lines in the current one. I'm a bit saddened that I can't find anything on 4. d4 in the Devin Gambit; it was Esipenko's choice against Mamedyarov, but I'm having trouble finding any written analysis of that move choice that isn't a mere blog post or lichess study. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 21:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::The Devin Gambit is a bit outside of my repertoire so I'm afraid I can't help there.
:::::The best source on the GWG (to my knowledge) is the series of 3 long articles on the schach-bremen.de website (which thankfully my browser automatically translates to English). If you know of any better source then do let me know.
:::::I did once try to get hold of the two German book(let?)s on the subject from the 1990s, but the postage from Germany was prohibitive. To be honest I got the impression that Jurgen Tonjes had condensed all the most important info from those sources into his schach-bremen articles (but I stand to be corrected).
:::::Magnus Carlsen gave the GWG a spin at Titled Tuesday back in December 2023 vs GM Aryan Tari (seems like Carlsen intends to play ''every'' opening at least once in his career...)
:::::There is also a Vachier-Lagrave game from back in 2019 (vs Wei Yi).
:::::GM Andrew Tang seems to be the GWG specialist and has used it to rack up victories against Firouzja and Andreikin amongst others. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 22:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::I will attempt to get what I can from the German articles (I could find [https://www.schach-bremen.de/rochade/2003/10/theorie.html the] [https://www.schach-bremen.de/rochade/2003/11/theorie.html three] [https://www.schach-bremen.de/rochade/2003/12/theorie.html articles] about it, but my lack of German knowledge is a bit of a burden here). Schiller's ''Unorthodox chess openings'' from 1998 has eight pages (203-210) dedicated to the opening. The theory is likely going to be dated somewhat in both cases, since the website is now over 20 years old and Schiller's book is over 25 years old. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 22:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The best insight into the current theory may be the 16 games by GM Andrew Tang (+14 -2) played between 2020 and 2023. Seems like these were mostly bullet games, however, so I guess he was using the GWG because it's obscure and hard to refute with only a minute on the clock, rather than because he had some ground-breaking theoretical novelties.
:::::::To be honest, a Wikipedia article on the GWG would only need to address the theory at a fairly superficial level re: the pros and cons of accepting/declining the gambit plus a few sample lines taken from the occasional GM games. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 22:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:To follow up on this all, there appears to be a free community chessable course at <https://www.chessable.com/the-devilish-devin-gambit/course/140860/> which is explicitly about this gambit. I'd ordinarily have no questions on using this if the author were a titled player (as they'd be something of a subject matter expert on chess), but it's made by a club player whose day job appears to be some sort of economics role for the [[Central Bank of Ireland]]. I'm looking and I see some evidence that there's playtesting and quality control on Chessable's end (''c.f.'' {{tq|editorial control}} and {{tq|a reputation for fact-checking}} in [[WP:BIASED|the reliable sources guideline]]), and the main reason I'd like to use this source is to annotate a game that includes a tournament game between two GMs that includes 3. ...Bb4+ rather than just have some pictures of certain positions with little accompanying text.
:My instinct here is saying that the source is OK in this context—I know we don't use Lichess studies, but I think the editorial control on Chessable's end distinguishes the community Chessable courses from studies on Lichess— though I wanted to see if there are any other opinions here. I'll be moving the draft to mainspace shortly; if there's no objections, I'll try to annotate the Wei Yi vs Levon Aronian game using the course as a source. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 17:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what the chapter and verse is here, but personally I wouldn't have any objection given the nature of the subject. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 18:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
::Are you saying you have annotations by a strong player, rather than just "a club player"? I would not recommend using annotations by a club player in a Wikipedia article. Given that Aronian and Wei Yi are super-GMs, you should be able to find annotations by someone real somewhere. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 21:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
:::With regard to the author in the case quoted above, if his Chessable username 'pafiedor' relates to Pawel Fiedor then his standard play FIDE rating is 1485 (according to fide.com). If that is the case then I'd be inclined to reverse my previous comment. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 23:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Playing strength does not directly correlate with annotation quality. Reshevsky's books are notoriously poor, but I'd have no problem recommending a Graham Burgess or Tim Harding book. An amateur who has done their research and knows how to write can produce good annotations. When it comes to chess writing, Elo isn't everything. (That said 1485 is pushing it). [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 23:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
::::That's about where I am on this. It's just a bit hard to find commentary on this opening for high-level games, since the opening is fairly rare (and has been used by very strong players only very recently). — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 01:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's disappointing to run across a very high-level game (or more than one such game) for which there is no very high-level commentary. But we are an encyclopedia, we can wait. If the opening is worth writing about, soon enough the writing will come; and if it doesn't come, maybe the variation is not encyclopedia-worthy after all. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 03:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's fair. I think the opening's gotten enough coverage for an article, but you're right there's no need to rush with commentary for an illustrative game regarding the 3. ...Bb4+ line. I shouldn't need to stretch sourcing for that sort of thing. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 04:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::My feeling on this is as follows:
:::::There will already be entire chess opening articles on Wikipedia that were written by players rated at less than, say, USCF Expert level (i.e. rating of 2000-2199). No one is worried about that as long as the articles are basically correct and informative and they quote appropriate [[WP:RS]] sources.
:::::However, in the case in point, the value of a 1485 player adding commentary on a super GM game is going to be limited, and the point of quoting it as a source will be low.
:::::If you are higher rated than 1485 then you might as well add your own commentary.
:::::If you aren't then you can probably generate commentary of higher value than a 1485 player by simply putting the game through the Stockfish analysis engine [https://www.365chess.com/analysis_board.php], picking out some salient sub-variations and adding some relevant gloss. If a stronger player later comes along and disagrees with what you've said then obviously they can change it for themselves. That's just the normal Wikipedia process on any article (chess related or otherwise).
:::::However, three further points...
:::::a) on your draft article, why is it necessary to add commentary on a Super GM game at all? Most Wikipedia chess opening articles only talk about the opening moves in general terms without going into detail on specific games (and without discussing very much after the opening has ended except on a thematic level). Illustrative games normally sit at the end of the article, free of commentary.
:::::b) if you feel that the commentary in the source you cite is clearly more insightful than that of a 1485 player then that raises the issue that you raised earlier on the relevance of whether or not there was editorial oversight prior to publication, but I'm not sure that we will get a consensus on whether that can be established or whether it is relevant.
:::::c) there are already plenty of Wikipedia articles about openings more obscure and unorthodox than the Devin Gambit (e.g. article on 1.Nh3, etc.). I don't see anyone claiming that those articles are any the less (or that their notability is in question) due to the lack of expert commentary on Super GM games featuring those openings. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 03:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::To briefly respond in part: The reason I was seeking to include an illustrative game of the variations was that something like the GA [[Budapest_Gambit#Illustrative_games|Budapest gambit]] has an illustrative game, and I've generally seen illustrative games in other articles (though in some, like [[Queen's Gambit Declined, Cambridge Springs Defense]], it's without commentary). I haven't written a chess openings article before, so I'm admittedly a bit new in terms of the general style and conventions here. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 03:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If it helps, I was in the same position as you last year. I saw that there were some openings articles which were poorly written stubs so I rewrote them myself pretty much from scratch and expanded them to full articles. If you have a look at them it may help re: issues like format, level of analysis etc. in minor openings. The articles are [[King's Indian Attack]], [[Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack]], [[London System]], and [[Hippopotamus Defence]]. The content/format seems to be non-controversial as the articles have only seen minor (mostly copy-editing) adjustments since they went up. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 04:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Bellón López]] ==
== [[Mark Schulman (chess player)]] ==
 
I find it incredible that anyone would consider a 5 time Spanish national champion and ten-time national representative of any sport non-notable, or allege that they're only known because of their wife or daughter, but here we are, and now we are in danger of a pile-on by clueless deletionists. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 08:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Are there enough sources to justify an article? He played in 3 Canadian championships and 1 Olympiad in the 1960s. Since I wrote my piece in the Afd discussion I did find an article by Daniel Yanofsky in the book [https://www.google.com/books/edition/100_Years_of_Chess_in_Canada/mSLwAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Mark+Schulman%22+chess&dq=%22Mark+Schulman%22+chess&printsec=frontcover "100 years of chess in Canada"](available only in snippet) which at least gives us a date of birth. [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Schulman_(chess_player)]]. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 03:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== [[Queen versus rook endgame]] ==
== Multiple off-by-one ratings ==
 
I thought it was a bit odd that we didn't have a standalone article on Q vs R, so I spent today procrastinating by writing one based on the first few sources I thought of looking up (Nunn, Müller and Lamprecht, Averbakh ''Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge'' – though the last one is old enough that it entertainingly says absolutely nothing about the third-rank defense, so it wasn't very helpful). Probably it could stand to have more about Q vs R+P (which is better covered in Dvoretsky), but I should stop procrastinating. :D [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 15:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm seeing numerous incorrectly-populated ratings. For example, according to [https://ratings.fide.com/profile/46616543 FIDE], [[Gukesh D|Gukesh]]'s rating is 2763. However, it's being automatically populated as 2764. [[User:Greenman|Greenman]] ([[User talk:Greenman|talk]]) 10:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 
== ChessMedal players' notabilityTable ==
 
I have noticed that @[[User:Vajrayudhan|Vajrayudhan]] has been adding medal tables for [[Chess Olympiad]], [[World Team Chess Championship]] and other chess ones for only Indian chess players. See [[Gukesh Dommaraju]], [[Surya Shekhar Ganguly]] etc.
Greetings, all. I suggest the criterion #1 of [[WP:NCHESS]] is changed in order to reflect the fact that [[Gender equality|both men's and women's]] title of [[Grandmaster (chess)|grandmaster]] is adequate when considering a chess player's notability. (Please take a look at a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Burtasova#Anna_Burtasova|relevant recent discussion]] in the [[WP:AFD|AfD]] page.) The proposed new text would read as follows:
# Has been awarded the title of [[Grandmaster (chess)|Grandmaster]] through either men, women, or combined competitions.</br>
-[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 12:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
*The proposed wording does not add any content to the existing wording. The phrase "through either men, women, or combined competitions", besides being less than perfectly grammatical, does not qualify the previous part of the sentence in any way. So I did not know what you had in mind. I turned to the AfD discussion (thanks for the link), and I now have an idea what you might have meant. Perhaps you would like [[WP:NCHESS]] to mention the WGM title as well as the GM title. I definitely don't like this idea, but before I go on about it, I'll stop and check that that is what you had in mind. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 22:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, I find the notion that women athletes who compete in women-only sports and achieve the same awards or titles as men (e.g. chess grandmasters, Wimbledon tennis tournament winners, Olympic track and field medalists, etc) should have their awards or titles treated in exactly the same way as men's, ''as far as their use to indicate notability is concerned''. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 11:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
:::WGM titles are not parallel titles. They are lesser titles available to women, on the way to the same titles at the top that are available to everyone. The highest level of women competition does not involve WGMs; they are contested by GMs who are women. Accordingly, sources don't care about women who are WGMs just because they are WGMs; there are enough women GMs to care about. It's better to focus on reasons other than their titles that might generate SIGCOV. [[Bodhana Sivanandan]], for example, meets GNG despite not even being a WGM.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Regardless, NCHESS can be used as guidance when looking for topics to create articles on but it ought not to be used as an argument in AFDs. And it is already too lax. Not all GMs are actually notable.<span id="Usedtobecool:1714911245132:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Chess" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;'''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]'''&nbsp;[[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 12:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)</span>
:::Agree with {{u|Usedtobecool}}. A crucial point here is that the WGM title is a separate title from the GM title. Hypothetically, as a woman is ascending the ladder of chess, she might get both. Separate certificates, separate lapel pins, etc. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 14:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
::::For most WGMs, the next step on the ladder is to get the IM title (as many women have done, including by playing in all-woman tournaments). The unceremonious treatment of Dutch IM Lars Ootes in a recent Afd shows that IMs are not always considered notable, so presumably WGMs are not always considered notable either. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 06:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::I wouldn't call the deletion of the article about Lars Osten as "unceremonious treatment." It was a 2-1 decision. As to your deductive presumptions, well, they're personal opinions and no more, in the absence of supporting data. A good point about ELO ranges was made, though. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 18:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
Some of the replies seem to have some misconceptions. [[User:Sportsfan77777|Sportsfan77777]] ([[User talk:Sportsfan77777|talk]]) 15:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
* Women's titles are parallel titles. If you go to a GM's FIDE page (e.g. [https://ratings.fide.com/profile/5091756]), you will see both titles listed, not just GM. I get why because of the rating requirements you want to think of it as just one ladder you can climb, but really it's two separate ladders you can climb together. The FIDE title regulations page ([https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B012024]) expresses the same sentiment. [[User:Sportsfan77777|Sportsfan77777]] ([[User talk:Sportsfan77777|talk]]) 15:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
* Regarding IMs, a male player having the IM title may not be inherently notable, but a female player having the IM title is. Every single woman with the IM title already has a page. [[User:Sportsfan77777|Sportsfan77777]] ([[User talk:Sportsfan77777|talk]]) 15:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
* For WGMs, there are ~2000 GMs compared to only about ~500 WGMs. In that sense, the WGM title is more exclusive. I think it's fair that if we think the GM title implies notability, the WGM title should as well. (The reality is probably neither really imply notability. A fairly high fraction of GMs or WGMs are notable, but not 100% in either case.) We already have over 400 (I think 450?) WGM pages out of 500 WGMs. That's a pretty good percentage around 80-90%, probably similar to the percentage for GMs. [[User:Sportsfan77777|Sportsfan77777]] ([[User talk:Sportsfan77777|talk]]) 15:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
*:[[WP:AfD]] discussions involving biographies of chess players always revolve around "[[WP:COVERAGE|significant coverage]]"; the strength of the player or the title held seldom figure into the discussion. This is the widely recognized, but largely unwritten, weakness of [[WP:NCHESS]], which for this very reason cannot even remotely approach authority as a test of notability, but can only serve as a guideline.
*:You observation that the WGM title is as good a predictor of notability as the GM title, if not better, is something I hadn't thought of, but it makes perfect sense. Women are still quite rare in organized (adult) chess, and wherever they go, all eyes are upon them. This translates to more coverage, for better or for worse, in publications of all kinds, all the way up to our [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. In spite of what I wrote earlier in this conversation, I could hardly object if [[WP:NCHESS]] were revised to reflect this. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 23:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:::While discussions involving biographies of chess players should indeed revolve around significant overall coverage in sources, the additional criteria for notability available through [[WP:NCHESS]] can stand on their own. As to your remarks about WGMs, we're in firm agreement. That's why I proposed a change in the wording. Suggestions? -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 07:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
::Your observations, [[User:Sportsfan77777|Sportsfan77777]], are spot on. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 07:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 
Can I confirm if there has been any consensus amongst the chess community on wiki if we should add such medals to the medal table? For example if we use Olympiad medals, we will have to add them to pretty much all medalists. We can't just do it for Indians player because this wouldn't be fair otherwise and can be seen as breaching [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:PROMO]].
== Style to display chess moves ==
The only one I have seen used consistently is [[Asian Games]] so far.
 
[[User:Imcdc|<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#40E0D0"> Imcdc</b>]] <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px 5px;background:#0151D2;font-size:75%">[[User talk:Imcdc|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Contact'''</span>]]</span> 07:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Recently [[User:Neo Purgatorio]] changed a lot of opening articles to go from explicitly mentioning the move number to implicitly using a numbered list to get it (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sokolsky_Opening&diff=prev&oldid=1225213428 diff], so <nowiki>:1. Na3 vs. # Na3</nowiki>). We discussed it a bit on their talk page. I realized that it doesn't look like [[WP:CHESS]] currently has any guidelines or suggestions on how to display moves? Anyway, I think that maybe we should have such a guideline added.
 
:There was a discussion of medal tables for articles about chess players in [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 34#Medal template for Infobox chess biography.]] It was not a popular idea at the time. Although chess players who win medals value them, credentials and other criteria for judging a player's success and strength tend to run to FIDE title, ratings, championships won, etc. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 17:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I think it should recommend the existing style and discourage the numbered list style. Reasoning: chess moves are not really a numbered list. The move number is a primary part of the text, not just a count of items - imagine if there's 4 buildings with names prepended with "1/2/3/4", we wouldn't use a numbered list but rather include these as part of the name. It is surprising and confusing to go into edit source and have the move numbers "disappear". Additionally, most browsers copy & paste will exclude numbered list counts, which is explicitly ''not'' desired. Try going to [[Descriptive_notation#Example]] and copy pasting the move list (which uses the numbered list style); you'll end up with no move numbers. Copy-pasting a directly written version works fine, though. The two styles display basically identically, so why would we want to go with the harder-to-edit, harder-to-copy version? (Also, machine ingestion is mostly not our problem, but automatic analysis of text also probably wants to see the move numbers explicitly.) And while it can be worked around, it's extra-annoying to use a numbered list style if the move list doesn't start at 1 (doable, but why are we doing this extra work again?). I don't really see any advantages of using the numbered list style, but I'll let Neo Purgatorio or others make the case for why they're worth considering. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 15:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
::I will take it then to be consistent, we should just remove all chess medal tables then?
::I am ok with stuff like [[Asian Games]] and [[FISU World University Games]] which are multi-event and measured by medals. But not with putting stuff like Olympiads where there is no precedence to do so. [[User:Imcdc|<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#40E0D0"> Imcdc</b>]] <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px 5px;background:#0151D2;font-size:75%">[[User talk:Imcdc|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Contact'''</span>]]</span> 01:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::[[Chess Olympiad]], [[World Team Chess Championship]] and Continental Team Chess Championships are the long-established major team events in chess, held once in a fixed duration, and of sufficient importance that the teams are selected by the national chess federations and the results covered in media. Almost all the best players take part in it, with rare exceptions.
:::[[Board games at the Asian Games|Asian Games chess]] is a recent and intermittent addition to the chess calendar, but still gets sufficient coverage due to the notability of the [[Asian Games]], and the chess players involved too. From what I see, strong Asian chess nations like India, China, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Iran have invariably fielded their best players at these events. There are other multi-sport events such as [[Summer Universiade]] and [[Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games]] which have included chess.
:::In my opinion, these two categories of events should be present in medal templates as they are fundamentally about medals (gold, silver, bronze medals are actually awarded), and strong and important enough for medals won at these events to be mentioned in templates.
:::World Championships are obviously worthy of a template. The conventional chess tournaments such as round robins (Sinquefield Cup, Tata Steel etc), Swisses (Aeroflot Open, Qatar Masters, national championships etc) and knockouts (American Cup, Speed Chess Championships), do not deserve a medal template as only the 1st place matters. These can perhaps be mentioned in a text section called "notable tournaments won" for prominent players, but WITHOUT a medal template. Also, perhaps specific FIDE tournaments such as FIDE World Cup, FIDE Grand Swiss, FIDE Grand Prix and FIDE Candidates can be mentioned in templates. [[User:Vajrayudhan|Vajrayudhan]] ([[User talk:Vajrayudhan|talk]]) 01:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Also, the presence of chess Olympiad medal templates is not unique to Indian chess players. For example, see [[Vasyl Ivanchuk]] and [[Ruslan Ponomariov]]. [[User:Vajrayudhan|Vajrayudhan]] ([[User talk:Vajrayudhan|talk]]) 01:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] Any thoughts on this? [[User:Imcdc|<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#40E0D0"> Imcdc</b>]] <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px 5px;background:#0151D2;font-size:75%">[[User talk:Imcdc|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Contact'''</span>]]</span> 01:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I recognize that, for our chess biographies as a whole, we do not have a consistent system for summarizing a player's major achievements in an easy to read form. For instance, in [[Magnus Carlsen]] we have a table of all his tournament finishes, but if the reader wants only to see his major successes, this table is too much. For most other players we don't have anything, and the reader can only try to digest the flat year-by-year narrative of the player's career.
::::::So a medal template for the infobox is an attempt to solve a genuine problem. But it has several flaws.
::::::A team medal earned in a team event may not reflect the player's performance; for example, if he fell sick and only played one game, he still gets the medal.
::::::A board prize earned in a team event may have been earned by facing a weak field. For example, the silver medal for second board in the recent Olympiad was won by a player who faced only eight opponents, of whom only three were rated above 2500.
::::::Most of the strongest tournaments do not award medals at all.
::::::Your suggestion of a "notable tournaments won" section could help with this. I assume that what you have in mind is something like [[Vasyl Ivanchuk#Notable tournament victories]]. I am dissatisfied that the medal table in the infobox and the notable tournaments section in the article text are not near to each other -- we almost make matters worse by putting them in places that do not have equal prominence and are not near to each other. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 05:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::: The medals infobox is an abomination. All the arguments from 2018 against the medals infobox are still valid, but seeing it in practice shows it is actually worse than I thought.
::::::: Making this so prominent in articles is [[:WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] since Wikipedia is placing importance on the medals that does not exist in the English-speaking chess world. (I'm not going to presume what importance the medals have in other parts of the world.) Compare the medals box for [[:Viswanathan Anand]] and [[:Savitha Shri Baskar]]. The medals infoboxes do not convey any useful insight into their relative accomplishments, and in fact they actively obfuscate. Bloated infoboxes at the top of an article do not have the effect that is likely intended, rather they appear sad and a little desperate. If the achievements are important they should be described in prose in the article body. I may be in the minority, but I expect Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, not an infoboxopedia.
::::::: The medal boxes are bloated and the effect on some articles is just ghastly. For example, take a look again at the [[:Savitha Shri Baskar]] article. You might think it isn't too bad, but I invite you to view that page on a phone. The infoboxes take the entire width of small screens so on a phone you must scroll down several screens to reach the article proper. I also think there are some issues with accessibility and legibility of the medals infobox. The medals are in small coins that are difficult to distinguish at low resolution, and the contrast differences between the medal colors are relatively low.
::::::: Rather than jamming these monstrosities at the top of the article I think it works better to use a standard wiki table to present tournament and match results near the end of the article. An example of this that I like is [[:Alexander Alekhine#Summary of results in competitions]]. The regular table format allows inclusion of a lot more information and in a format that is easier to understand. Placing a potentially large table near the end of an article is much better than putting it at the top and before the article body.
::::::: I am strongly opposed to use of any medals infobox in chess biographies, and I think they should be removed. [[User:Quale|Quale]] ([[User talk:Quale|talk]]) 07:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I'm inclined to agree. Chess in general doesn't put a lot of emphasis on "medals". I don't really care if someone got a "bronze medal" at the Vietnamese Team Championship. They can be mentioned in the article, but shouldn't be in the infobox. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 00:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Should we add this as a guideline to the WikiProject front page?
:::::::::We probably also need to add a cleanup project since there are a lot of players to be dealt with. [[User:Imcdc|<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#40E0D0"> Imcdc</b>]] <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px 5px;background:#0151D2;font-size:75%">[[User talk:Imcdc|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Contact'''</span>]]</span> 01:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
 
== Live rating being added by unregistered users despite being against guidelines ==
:I'm personally fine with either being done here; my impression on the articles, since I'm not all that familiar with chess notation but have grasped the basics of it, was that they were meant to be numbered but simply were not and thus could have used numbered lists. I was looking at it through a formatting standpoint, but I did try to check [[WP:CHESS]] to see if there was anything specific on it. I do think the point you've made about not being able to copy chess notation as a result of numbered lists has merit. [[User:Neo Purgatorio|Neo Purgatorio]] ([[User talk:Neo Purgatorio|talk]]) 16:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
::I've gone ahead and reverted the changes I've made; this discussion should still probably play out, however, since there aren't any guidelines here relating to what to do. [[User:Neo Purgatorio|Neo Purgatorio]] ([[User talk:Neo Purgatorio|talk]]) 05:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 
I have observed that live ratings are being constantly added to pages such as [[List of chess players by peak FIDE rating]] as well as player pages such as [[Arjun Erigaisi]] and [[Gukesh Dommaraju]] despite being against WikiProject Chess guidelines. Markdown flags such as "DO NOT ADD LIVE RATING" have been placed on such pages to no avail.
== Gadgets now loadable on a per-category basis ==
 
I wonder if the issue can be tackled by adding semi-protection or pending changes protection (See [[Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Comparison_table]]). At least the [[List of chess players by peak FIDE rating]] page, a target of frequent vandalism by unregistered users, is worthy of it. [[User:Vajrayudhan|Vajrayudhan]] ([[User talk:Vajrayudhan|talk]]) 01:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I know that there was work in progress on creating a chess game extension, in place of trying to deploy the chess game gadget. Note it is now possible to trigger a gadget loading by placing a page in a configured category. [[mw:Template gadgets]] has a bit of description. The first request on English Wikipedia is to support a [[mw:Gadget-Global-Vivarium.js|gadget that implements Conway's Game of Life]]; see [[Talk:Conway's Game of Life#Template gadget request]]. Thus it is finally possible to deploy the existing chess game gadget, with it being loaded only on the pages where it is needed. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 23:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 
== Requested move at [[Talk:Fischer random chess#Requested move 29 October 2024]] ==
== [[Izaak Appel]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Fischer random chess#Requested move 29 October 2024]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 21:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
 
== FICS at AfD ==
Appel was a strong Polish/Jewish player who "disappeared" while living in Lviv (or possibly Kyiv) following the 1941 Nazi invasion of Ukraine. He was almost certainly killed in 1941, but as is often the case the precise circumstances of his death are unknown. Currently we have a very unsatisfactory situation where his "disappearance" is sourced to a self-published Bill Wall page. Can we find something better? Gaige maybe? It would be better if we could say something like "Appel died in unknown circumstances following the 1941 Nazi invasion of Ukraine". [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 01:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 
Of possible interest to this WikiProject: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Internet Chess Server (2nd nomination)]] &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 00:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:Unfortunately all that Gaige says on page 12 of ''Chess Personalia'' is
:Appel, Izaak {{spaces|8}}POL
:{{spaces|3}}{{asterisk}}{{spaces|4}}c1905
:{{spaces|3}}{{dagger}}{{spaces|4}}c1941
:[[User:Quale|Quale]] ([[User talk:Quale|talk]]) 02:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 
== Akira Watanabe (chess) ==
 
Would someone from WP:CHESS mind taking a look at [[:Akira Watanabe (chess)]] and assessing the subject's notability (as chess player)? I'll ask something similar at [[:WT:JAPAN]] given that the subject might possobily be notable for reasons other than chess, but the current focus of the article and claim of notability seem to be the subject's chess achievements. The article also appears to be a translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article [[:ja:渡辺暁]] (based on [[:User talk:Ebefl#Ways to improve Akira Watanabe (chess)]]) but is lacking proper attribution per [[:WP:TFOLWP]]. A lack of proper attribution cn most likely can be "[[:WP:BEFORE|fixed]]", but a lack of notability can't. For reference, the Japanese Wikipedia article does seem to be pretty much the same content-wise and is also basically only supported by a single [[:WP:PRIMARY]] source (the other sources listed as "references" seem more like "explanatory notes").-- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 21:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 
:I made a couple of quick searches but didn't find anything interesting. There is a book, "How to Play Chess Like Akira Watanabe", by John C. Murray, which I thought might be promising, but it is "independently published" (roughly equivalent to self-published). I also found an article in the Yale Bulletin about him, but it was from when he was a visiting scholar at Yale, and I would hesitate to call that "significant coverage". [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 02:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess"