Talk:World Chess Championship 2018

Rating list is done wrong, and is OR

It's probably better to assume ratings will not change in the last 4 months, rather than average the first 8 months only. Either way, it's WP:OR. Adpete (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:CALC, some "routine calculations" aren't original research as long as certain conditions are met. I think an average might be simple enough to be a routine calculation, but I agree on the larger issue; namely, how to actually do the calculations. Do we average only the first eight months, average twelve months by assuming no rating change for the final four months, or leave out the projected ratings entirely? /wiae /tlk 11:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

But the data isn't linked to (so it's a lot of work to look up and find the raw data in the first place), and even if it was linked to there's quite a bit of work involved: to average the rating of 10-20 players over 8 ratings periods, and then sort them into a list. I think that's far from a routine calculation, and it's certainly far more complicated than the examples offered at WP:CALC. My objection would be less if all 8 months were tabulated, because at least then someone could visually check. Adpete (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Good points. I have no objections to listing all eight months. /wiae /tlk 13:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I had some free time so I added the links and monthly ratings, and removed the tag. That leaves the other question I raised. At the moment it doesn't matter much which method we use (averaging over 12 gives the same top 4, but Aronian at 5 instead of Nakamura), but I suspect it will matter when we get to a month or two to go. Adpete (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and do the 12 month average. Clearly (IMHO) it's better to assume no change in rating for the remaining months. Adpete (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I gave the table an overhaul, showing totals so that readers can easily see both the current state, and understand better the projected total. It should probably be changed to replace current rating with live rating. I'll do that later when I find the time, unless someone else does it first. Adpete (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a regression. The totals columns are just superfluous, when the same information is far more meaningfully conveyed in ratings. Current rating is superfluous as it's just duplicated by the final entry of the lists of ratings. Live ratings would just be a maintenance nightmare and to my knowledge are not used anywhere on chess articles. You've also removed the important information of whether the player can still qualify by another means. I'm reverting the change, and suggest it's discussed further here. Greenman (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well there's redundant information either way - everything except the names column and the "ratings in each month" column is redundant; the rest do arithmetic and/or repeat information from elsewhere in the article. The version you reverted to has a totally redundant "difference" column, and those numbers aren't even accurate! (They're rounded). I added the totals columns because they show the true margin: in my opinion you don't get a feeling for how far MVL is behind, until you realise he has to make up 100+ ratings points over only 3 months. My version also has both totals (current and projected) instead of only one. But obviously if no one else sees it that way, consensus rules. I agree that if my version is kept, the "current rating" column could be removed. Adpete (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I can see 3 important numbers (apart from the raw ratings): (1) the current total; (2) the best guess for the rating for the next 3 months, and (3) the projected total or average (maybe it was a bit excessive for me to put both). (1) and (2) allow any user to do their own estimates, or substitute their own guess for the next 3 months. As it stands, we only have (3) (presented redundantly in two different columns). We have a poor substitute for (2), using the current rating instead of live rating. Since this part is projection anyway, we might as well use the live rating. Live ratings are in the text below the table anyway, so why not in the table? And yes other sites use live ratings, e.g. the Chessbase link [1]. As for the final column, it will be redundant tomorrow anyway, when we know who is and isn't in the World Cup final. We won't need an entire column to say that MVL has a chance and the GP and the others don't. Adpete (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The main objection to live ratings is that they require updating after every game, and old live ratings are not stored (that I can see) on the 2700 website, so there's no source for them. If you are happy to keep them updated I have no objections, but if it's going to be a maintenance nightmare, or a mix of live and not, then rather just leave as is. I still don't agree that a totals column is needed - totals are only used as an intermediate step in calculating the average rating, so I don't see the point. Average rating is what is important At the moment there's enough information for any user to calculate the data themselves - the entire 12 month data set is there. On a separate note, what about dropping at least Anand and Nakamura from the list? They're not really in the running any more. Greenman (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The point of totals is that is shows the magnitude of the margin. Obviously totals and averages are equivalent, but I think one gets a better feel for the margin if it's expressed as a total. I, for one, didn't realise how hopeless MVL's cause was until I looked at the totals. As for live ratings, someone's gone and done it anyway; so I'm going to make that a separate column. There seem to be enough editors to do this for the next 2 months. Totally agree with removing Anand and Nakamura, I'll do that in a minute. Also, do we really need an entire column just to point out MVL is still in the GP? Adpete (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Currently this table is now more confusing than ever. It shows 'projected Oct rating' and 'Live rating (Sep 26)'. Why would choose an arbitrary live rating as the basis for the 'projected Oct rating' when also using Live rating? It would be far better, and more accurate, to do away with the 'Projected Oct rating' and just use the live rating column. For example, Kramnik has lost a large number of points, and this this isn't reflected in the current table. Greenman (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It's because the Isle of Man tournament counts for November ratings but not October ratings, because it runs beyond October 1. So including only Live Rating would be misleading - Kramnik's lost points will not count for October, only November and December. The projected October rating isn't arbitrary - it's the Live Rating when players finished the World Cup, which is the "best guess" for what the ratings will be when the next list is released on October 1. Adpete (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

OK I see, thanks. The same will apply then next month with the European Team Chess Championships spanning the month-end. Do we know who is playing in that yet? Greenman (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

None of the players who can qualify by rating are playing in the ETCC. http://www.chess-results.com/tnr304480.aspx?lan=1&art=8&turdet=YES&flag=30&wi=984 192.55.54.38 (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Two Ratings

I add both Oct and Nov live rating because both are necessary to calculate PAvg rating--188.23.222.14 (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but they're not "live ratings". I'd rather call them "projected October rating" and "projected November rating". Because once the next tournament starts, the "projected October rating" will no longer be the current live rating, it will be the live rating of (about) September 22, while the "projected November rating" will be the "live rating". Also "projected" emphasises the fact that these are only estimates. Adpete (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I think I've got a better idea, which saves adding an extra column: have a column labelled something like "projected ratings for the remaining months", and that column has 3 numbers: the projected October, projected November, and projected December ratings. Then in the text we can explain how each is calculated, saying something like: "All ratings are released on the first of the month, and include tournaments which finished before that date. So the projected October rating is the live rating of September 22; the projected November rating is the current live rating; and until tournaments begin which end after November 1, the projected December rating is the same as the projected November rating." Adpete (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You are right. It is a good solution.--188.22.112.247 (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

But I think we should add the date for live rating e.g Live Rating (25 Sep)--188.22.112.247 (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Rating Table Remark

I think we should add some explanation for rating change. Because the average reader is be familiar with the rating calculation.- and don't know that a game point for a 2400+ player counts 10 points.--188.22.112.247 (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we list the ratings impact of every game? I think that would be too much detail. Adpete (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No i think about a remark like :a win vs a player with same rating counts 5 points , vs a -140 (?) couts 3 points and -400 counts 0.8 - this information is not that obvious even after read fide rating article --188.22.253.96 (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That much detail is not needed. -Koppapa (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Your comment is not needed.Maybe you are so kind to troll somebody else ?--194.96.24.134 (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Koppapa, this article is not the place for a detailed discussion of the rating system. Your suggestions might be a good addition to the Elo rating system article though. I agree the Elo article is a bit of a mess. Adpete (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Advance to title match

In my view, having a column indicating who becomes the Challenger is misleading when the tournament has not yet concluded. We cannot say that Caruana "advance[s] to title match" because there is still another round to be played, and he is not guaranteed to win the tournament! I will remove this column temporarily. Anyone is welcome to reinsert the title when the tournament is concluded and a winner crowned. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 20:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone beat me to the punch over at Candidates Tournament 2018. /wiae /tlk 20:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

time control

Is it known what the time control will be for this match? Thanks. 98.210.48.122 (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Same as the 2016 world championship: 100 minutes for the first 40 moves, 50 minutes for the next 20 moves and then 15 minutes for the rest of the game plus an additional 30 seconds per move starting from move 1. See the full rules and regulations here. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Match format

Do we not yet know the format of the match? How many games there will be etc? Would be nice to include. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Twelve games with the time control format noted above. If the score is tied after the final game, then they proceed into tiebreaks. This is the same format used in the 2016 championship and can be found on the FIDE website. Tkbrett (✉) 15:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Important - should framework be added for future games?

A recent edit war has occurred relating to future games. The user who made the original edit and the users who reverted it both think they're right but not the other. There should be a vote. Some users (excluding the one posting this) will do the vote on who is right and who isn't. If at least 1/2 vote for, the change will be made. If more than 1/2 vote against, the change won't me made. In any case, this assumes nobody is going to oscillate between excluding and excluding this feature through editing this article.211.27.126.189 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The uncommented skeleton, as you have repeatedly inserted, is not an option, and Wikipedia is not and never was a democracy. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Leave out and add when the games are played. I don't see any good reason to add them. "Make it easier for someone else to add them" is not a reason - it's just text, anyone who wants to add the information later can copy/paste. Banedon (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

WP Wikipedia isn't and never was a democracy seems to fail. I believe not everyone thinks the same on section formatting for the individual, regular games. Going too much, in fact, with the = signs to split sections, can have extra ='s in the section name. BTW, what's the reference to a skeleton here?211.27.126.189 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC) WP Wikipedia isn't and never was a democracy seems to fail I mean that I think the voting thing should still proceed. Do you understand, by the way, that this is good faith editing (any edits on Wikipedia since the 1st ones, including reversing other's edits)?211.27.126.189 (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Game 2 diagram

In the notation it says there is a diagram, but there is none. Either one should be added or the text removed. --Con^spiration 16:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone created a diagram for the position after 16...Nxd5, but i don't think there is anything notable about that. If we are going to have a diagram for the second game, i believe the position after 10... Rd8 was a much more critical moment in the game. See also: Carlsen's comment on the position in the press conference, Carlsen's surprised look after Caruana's move, Lichess blog post describing it as "the most dramatic moment" in the game, ChessNetwork's analysis of the position. - Radiphus (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Radiphus: I posted the diagram after Black's 16th move. Both analyses that are cited so far (Chess.com and The Guardian) note the temporary sacrifice 17. Nxf7 in addition to the time sinkhole (for Carlsen) 10...Rd8. I think the position after either player's 10th move should be the only other candidate for the diagram, but the question is which White responses on the 11th move do we include. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Diagrams

If you see new chess diagrams on the articles by me, please fix any issues because I don't know how to cite a chess diagram.211.27.126.189 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC) And any other issues in those diagrams (possibly lots).211.27.126.189 (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

If you don't know how to cite a diagram, then do NOT, per WP:V. Onus is on the person intending to add unsourced content. Also, mind WP:BRD, and the so-called "bold" refers to you. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

A diagram can be shown on Wikipedia from source code (such as like this one which, in ascending distance from the top of the page or anything placed above the actual diagram, has a title in bold, the chess position itself to be shown and a description at the bottom, this time not bold):

Starting position from White's view

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to move can move his 8 pawns, each by 1 or 2 squares and both his knights, each one of them 2 squares forward followed by 1 square to the left or right. As is common sense, such a position wouldn't be displayed in a diagram unless demonstrating how to set up a chessboard for a chess game which would only be necessary if the rules of chess.

One of these can also be made just by inputting into a chess software all the moves that were made in that game to reach the position (in the diagram for game 5, it was transferred from Chess24).211.27.126.189 (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Confusing Game 6 analysis

I quote: Carlsen's 67.Kg6? was a mistake that allowed Caruana a winning continuation in the endgame, which he missed: 68...Bh4! 69. Bd5 Ne2 70. Bf3 Ng1 71. Bg4 Kg8 72. Kh6 Be1 73. Kg6 Bc3 74. Kh6 Bd2+ 75. Kg6 Bg5 76. h6 Kh8 77. h7 Bh4 78. Kh6 Bf2 79. Kg6 Bd4 80. Kh6 Be3+ 81. Kg6 Bg5 82. Bh5 Nh3 83. Bg4 Nf4+ 84. Kf7 Kxh7, leaving black a clear knight ahead in a pawn and bishop vs pawn and bishop and knight endgame (the bishops being on opposite squares).

This is confusing as it jumps from move 67 for White to move 68 for Black, ignoring two moves in-between. Beatitudinem (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

following the game on wikipedia

Please switch to the Hebrew wikipedia on the same article, and you can follow the moves via an excellent tool prepared for wikipedia. It was offered as an add-in to the English wikipedia, but sadly was not accepted. If you think it is helpful, maybe you can press for the including of this viewer. All you need is to press the left arrow (it will bring the game to the beginning) and then the third arrow from the left and the moves will start to play. the bar below the moves controls the speed. As you move it towards the left it will slow the pace of the moves. --Yoavd (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Where's the link?211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It is the same article so you can just press on עברית, or if you prefer a link - [2] here it is. --Yoavd (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Should notation inconsistencies be corrected?

Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Chess_Championship_2018&diff=869781117&oldid=869760317 (no offence, but can we please discuss and only revert if the edit seems unnecessary to all who see it?)211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@211.27.126.189, thanks for this message; I don't really understand though. The only thing I've ever done to this article adds a (mildly pointless, perhaps!) short description. Does that need a talk-page consensus  :) ——SerialNumber54129 09:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I started this topic because it appears as though not every source mentioning white's 24th move in game 8 say its a blunder but I'm unsure (in fact, one of the links is a nearly 2 hour video which would probably get boring for me and I may not always have enough time). If you or anyone who sees this topic doesn't understand what I mean, please visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_annotation_symbols#??_(Blunder) before proceeding with the discussion. If you feel like you need to check whether the move is a blunder or not, I don't know where to look but try to search up something similar on any browser/search engine. Thanks.211.27.126.189 (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Right. So if I ever think that "move 24" in a game I never watch could be a blunder, I'll bear that in mind  ;) Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 10:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's the point. I don't think its in my favor to watch a 2 hour video just to see if a single move is a blunder because I might get bored in a part that comes before the one with the move I'm looking for. In fact, move numbers in chess don't affect outcomes very much (if I played, say a 50 move game you didn't see, don't assume that move 24 for white was a blunder which usually makes the position completely lost for whoever blundered but occasionally makes it drawn from a won position), and there are lots of chess games not many people see. I want someone else to see the video because I mightn't do a good job if I had to see it. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I can help much (SerialNumber54129). Maybe try some other sources by searching up for something like 'world chess championship 2018 game 8 move 24'. I did find a potentially good source as the 1st result, but I don't know how far you understand into chess. No offence. Lastly, I don't do descriptions and this is not a consensus on one.211.27.126.189 (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

??, ?!, ! are opinions about a move, and subjective. Each analysis text in the article is taken from a source reference. Different people and even different chess programs will give conflicting analyses, this is absolutely normal. Wikipedia reports analyses from reliable sources, it does not perform analysis of its own. Different mentions of a same move in the article can have different analyses, but must agree to the source material. If you do your own analysis or your own research for each particular move, that is original research, and against wikipedia policy. In the case of game 8: The diagram uses the Guardian live coverage as reference. There the analysis is "24. h3?!". The lead text above the moves uses the video commentaries of Hikaru Nakamura and Peter Svidler (in distinct videos) as reference, and there Nakamura's facial expression and Svidler's speech are correctly interpreted as h3??. The diagram text has been changed to agree with the source. Fbergo (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You can't base "??" on facial expressions. Also on-the-fly video commentary is notoriously unreliable. Adpete (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sam Shankland gave ?? in his analysis for Chess.com, also the move loses +2 on Sesse's eval so giving it ?? seems logical to me. Banedon (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no one right way to annotate moves with punctuation marks. Robert Hubner for example doesn't believe in awarding "!"'s at all; Svetozar Gligoric awards "!"'s for what he believes are a good psychological choices in the opening; Capablanca never used "?"'s, preferring to criticize the move in the notes. Symbols such as "!?" and "?!" are mildly controversial - is the move bad or isn't it? Many annotators prefer not to use them. It all comes down to the annotator's personal style or preference. In general I think wikipedia should use annotation marks conservatively. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with ?? if a majority of reliable sources explicitly say so. Shankland is certainly a reliable source, but from what I've seen, he's in the minority; he also says he wavered between ? and ?? [3]. In favour of a single "?" are Wesley So [4], and Ian Rogers [5]. Adpete (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Consensus of reliable sources seems to be a single "?". The Guardian's "?!" is probably too light, Shankland's "??" too harsh. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving.

I wasn't doing an analysis or at least making an attempt to do so (I thought there wasn't enough consistency), and I think too many analyses makes it hard for one to make out which to trust more (3 is a bit too much even for me).211.27.126.189 (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

is there a way to improve the citations?

The cites to chess.com read like this: Doggers, Peter (21 November 2018). "World Chess Championship Game 9: Another Draw Sets Record". Chess.com. Retrieved 21 November 2018. However what is missing from these cites is that the analysis comes from a strong grandmaster (in the case of Game 9, Sam Shankland), not from a (relatively) weaker player like Peter Doggers. Is there a way to add the annotator to these cites? Adpete (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Tiebreaks (if needed): Is this necessary or can we have Tiebreaks only?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Chess_Championship_2018&diff=870014945&oldid=870011421 I think violates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. I decided to revert the edit, but maybe reverting it wouldn't do anything good. If the discussion ends but the edit not reverted, the discussion has concluded the revert won't do any good.211.27.126.189 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not a big fan on consistency checking. Even then, I try not to make something inconsistent with something else.211.27.126.189 (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

If you are not a big fan on consistency checking, then you have no business editing. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not about consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.126.189 (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

3 issues on this page

There are 3 issues on this page I want to be resolved: 1. Where it says that game 1 was the 4th longest game by move played in any world championship, it mentions the top 3 in descending order of moves. I don't know about you (and that's why I created this section), but I think it should be listed in ascending order of moves. 2. Remember a framework dispute during classical portion? Well, what if framework was added for the tiebreak games? That is, whenever it becomes appropriate to insert a header for the 1st game for that particular time control, headers will be inserted for all the games of the respective time control. The empty headers will come and go from the page in a matter of hours. 3. I was told there is a draw of colors for the tiebreak portion. I think it hasn't happened yet and I think the page is assuming Carlsen will be white for the 1st tiebreak game. Something should be done until it happens and swap the colors if Carlsen in fact will play black. Thanks!211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• None of these are issues that need resolving. 1. When one makes a list of the N longest games, it is expected that the first one on the list be the longest and the rest follow in descending order (2nd longest, 3rd longest, etc.). The article is correct, and you are wrong, as usual. 2. Adding the headers is trivial and takes a few seconds for experienced editors. If you want to play with wikipedia, use a sandbox, not a high visibility article of an ongoing event. 3. The draw of colors happened a few hours ago [6], so you are wrong again, as usual. Fbergo (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not here to be wrong or edit war, and I thought the draw would happen just before the tiebreak started. Even non experienced editors don't have much difficulty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.126.189 (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Fbergo: friendly WP:BITE reminder. Banedon (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think someone violated WP:BITE (no offence).211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The tone of Fbergo's comments makes it seem like he/she is violating WP:BITE. Banedon (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

In what way? PS Speaking of framework I don't know why previously any shown framework was commented out but now its removed even when commented out in the 1st place. I don't know why.211.27.126.189 (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The many surprised grandmasters of Game Twelve

It appears that the reference to “many surprised grandmasters” is an example of what’s known as Original Research, because it is unsourced: Such a group of grandmasters is not mentioned in the two citations given attached to that paragraph. There are grandmasters mentioned in both sources, but they don’t fit the description. In the second source (chess.com) for example there are no “surprised” grandmasters, but only some described as “analysts” who agree “that Black had a clear advantage”. The only three grandmasters that can be described as “surprised”, are in the first citation (chessbase), and “three” is not “many”. The only source for the reference to “many surprised grandmasters” appears to be a Wikipedia editor.

References to an imaginary group of authorities can hard to resist, because it gives a sense of authority or importance to content. That’s why it’s not uncommon in Wikipedia articles, but it’s discouraged — for example in this Wikipedia article: WP:AWW.

The paragraph doesn’t benefit from straying away from what the sources are actually saying — it sounds more encyclopedic and less like fiction to stick to the sources. (I think so.) I have edited the paragraph to try to remove the original research and to make the article more accurate. Ykemp (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I argue that the "many surprised grandmasters" is a reasonably obvious summary from the sources given. The Chessbase article gives Kramnik and So as surprised; the Chess.com article gives Aronian, Kasparov, Sam Shankland, Alex Yermolinsky, and Caruana himself. If there's been any GM who said "I'm not surprised", I've yet to see it. So I say this is not OR - it's a reasonable summary. Banedon (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

To refute the previous comment: Aronian, Shankland, Yermolinsky, are are in fact not described in the sources as being “surprised”, and Caruana cannot be described as “spectating”. If no one can point to any content in the source to support the articles claim, it must have been invented by a Wikipedia editor. A reasonable summary it is not — if it is nowhere in the source. A summary would have to be true to the source. Here’s what the article Wikipedia:No original research has:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

I’d suggest that a solution to this problem would be to find another source — one that supports the content in the article.Ykemp (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Again I argue it is a reasonable summary. If you're challenging this then we'd need sources for all sorts of things that are obvious enough that sources implicitly assume it. For example most physicists believe that dark matter exists, which is why it's the mainstream, but it's not easy to find a source that explicitly says that. Seeing a third opinion here, because I don't think we're going to agree. Banedon (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not anything's a reasonable summary, the issue is: Wikipedia requires all content to be properly sourced. Regarding that hypothetical group of physicists that believe in Dark Matter, just like the hypothetical group of grandmasters, they can properly appear in Wikipedia only if their existence is properly sourced. Is it so hard to find a source to support this content? After all, it's a story that has been reported in all kinds of media all over the globe. (By the way, physicists—in their capacity as such—tend to think that "belief" is outside the realm of science, and they resist wandering away from the world they live in – which is a world full of evidence subject to testing. That's why it can be hard to find them expressing a "belief" in anything. A physicist can be counted on to say things about Dark Matter like: Is there evidence? What is the quality of the evidence? What does it point to or what can be induced or deduced from it? etc.)Ykemp (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"Is it so hard to find a source to support this content" - yes. If you ask 10 random physicists whether they believe dark matter is a better explanation for observations than any other theory, chances are they will all say yes. But that's not explicitly saying that "most physicists ..."; to get that you need to do interview like 1000 physicists and aggregate the results. In this case you're challenging the "most grandmasters" part when every grandmaster I've seen quoted has been disappointed. You demand a source that explicitly says "most grandmasters ...", which is certainly not easy. Here's the latest Chessbase article on this which again implies that most fans were disappointed, but if you look through the article, you can't find a sentence that explicitly says it. Again, we need a third opinion, because we're not going to agree. Banedon (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

2 confusing edit summaries relating to edits in the game 12 section

I found 2 reverts were made to the section focusing on game 12. Here are the edit summaries. I'm posting this because I don't understand either of them. After each edit summary, I explain what I think is going on. No offence (I'm not trying to offend anyone with my thoughts). Edit summary No.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Chess_Championship_2018&oldid=871002165 here is the edit summary: precedent is that we don't use annotation marks in the bolded game scores). Probably the user thinks that annotation symbols are to be the same for every mention of the same move but not where a move is indicated to be the one which is the focus of the respective diagram. Edit summary No.2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Chess_Championship_2018&oldid=871002053 here is the edit summary: this is off topic, or at best peripheral). Chess.com is a notable website in the online chess world, so is the fact that Carlsen agreed to a draw in a better position as well as the website having to pause programming of their new computer chess tournaments. Plus, what does peripheral mean in this context?211.27.126.189 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) None of the other bolded game scores include annotation symbols. Why should game 12 be different? (2) It means the article is supposed to be about the 2018 world chess championship, not some website running a computer tournament for its own amusement/edification. Hence, off-topic. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) Why don't the bolded games scores do this? (2) I've already said before (no offence) that Chess.com, their computer chess tournaments and the fact that one of them are all notable.211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I meant that one of the chess tournaments for computers at chess.com will be paused and a different tournament also for computers will be worked out as to what should've happened after 31...Ra8 is notable.211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:OFFTOPIC. This article is not about chess.com computer tournaments. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What if the content is related? I don't understand the logic, especially when chess.com has been talked about in this article days prior to the edit which I'm pretty sure has happened (no offence). PS what's the logic with not putting any annotation symbols in moves that are talked about in a diagram?211.27.126.189 (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I have answered both questions clearly enough. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

None have been answered clearly enough for my satisfaction. Sorry, but maybe someone else should come in here to resolve this(no offence)!211.27.126.189 (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"This article is not about chess.com computer tournaments". Which part of that is not clear????? This is brick wall stuff. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The 1st edit summary you've still not explained clearly enough for me. I know what you're saying about the 2nd edit summary (obvious to me even when I 1st saw this article close to if not over 20 days ago). In fact, I never said I don't understand what you said in the last post which, no offence, looks rather angry to me. BTW Are you saying the text doesn't need any more references to chess.com than it already does?211.27.126.189 (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"No offence" but fuck off. I'm done with you. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe in swearing, that's A. B, I need someone else to resolve this with me. At the very least, I won't undo the edits whose edit summaries we were talking about here.211.27.126.189 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Chess.com computer simulation

I think the chess.com link should stay. It's a natural continuation of the attention surrounding the game, and readers are likely to be interested. In fact I was going to update the article with the final score after the tournament is finished. However I would certainly not say that chess.com interrupted another engine tournament for this; that's certainly not relevant. Banedon (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought so too about interrupting a tournament on chess.com. What about the 1st edit summary? PS I thought there has to be 4 rapid games played, not 3.211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"Best out of 4" means the first player to 2½ points wins, which Carlsen achieved with 3 out of 3 in the Rapid section. It's astonishing anyone here takes you seriously with that kind of non-grasp of the basics. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I wrote this after I saw the regulations on this page. Another reason why is because in 2016, there were 4 games even though I thought back then there had to be some kind of lead, not by any specific margin.211.27.126.189 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Quoting WP:OFFTOPIC, "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information." - emphasis mine. Chess.com has no particular connection to the World Chess Championship (it is an acceptable media source for this article but there are better ones). The World Chess Championship takes place in the real world, not on the internet. Chess.com is just one site among many covering it. In an article on the 1957 World Championship, would you expect to read something like "members of the Moscow Combined Socialist Trade Union Chess Association played a theme tournament using the position after White's 22nd move of the 17th game of the Botvinnik-Smyslov match to determine what would have happened?" I certainly wouldn't, it's "only loosely relevant". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a complete parallel however. Engines are stronger than humans, so the results of the tournament would show what "should" have happened. The theme tournament you mention would not be comparable because it'd have lots of weaker players playing. Also to note about the chess.com tournament is that it runs on very powerful hardware, which makes it even more authoritative on what "should" have happened (inverted commas because of course humans cannot duplicate engine play). Banedon (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There are no perfect analogies of course, they are used to illustrate a point. Chess.com's computer tournament is the very definition of "only loosely relevant", and mentioning it here could be seen as a WP:PLUG for a commercial site. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a plug for chess.com. The tournament would be relevant even if someone else ran it. As for only loosely relevant, that's why it's a single paragraph in a sub-subsection, as opposed to its own section. Banedon (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not here to post off topic information, and I thought myself the thing about computer chess on chess.com was off topic.211.27.126.189 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Celebrities making opening moves

There seem to have been some 13 celebrities (of varying notability) making opening moves. Is it worth including these in the article or is the information too trivial? This is a list, if of use:

• Game 1: Woody Harrelson, US actor and playwright
• Game 2: Andrey Guryev Jr., CEO of PhosAgro (one of the sponsors)
• Game 3: Jon Gulbrandsen (winner of an auction to make the first move in a game)
• Game 4: Ellisiv Reppen, Norwegian chess player and children's chess book author
• Game 5: Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia
• Game 6: Kay Burley, Sky News presenter
• Game 7: Shreyas Royal, English junior chess player who has been in the news
• Game 8: Demis Hassabis, chess player and co-founder of DeepMind
• Game 9: Daniel Weil, designer of the chessboard and pieces used (see here)
• Game 10: Tom Hollander, English actor
• Game 11: Sergey Karjakin, previous challenger for the title
• Game 12: Aldo del Bo, Head of Global Partnerships and Sponsorships of Kaspersky Lab (one of the sponsors)
• Tie-breaks: Lucy Hawking, daughter of physicist Stephen Hawking

I can rustle up reliable sources if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant and distracting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I thought it only happens with the 1st game.211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: It's mildly interesting, I'm just not sure if it has permanent encyclopedic value or if it's just an ephemeral thing that nobody's going to care about next month. You could try working some of these into the narrative for the round and see if it gets reverted (if it does it won't be me who does it). Big respect for Lucy Hawking, awesome woman. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

More distraction
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Isn't this a relatively new idea for the world chess championship? Maybe someone other than the player playing white has made the 1st move of a few world chess championships? Just checking because of consistency. No offence.211.27.126.189 (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)