Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review

Welcome to the review department of the WikiProject Chess. This page is primarily aimed to host the internal reviews of a candidate article for an A-Class quality assessment, see Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. It can also be used to host informal peer-reviews on chess-related articles.

Assessment criteria

Main criteria for classes

As explained at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, an A-class article should be at the stage of quality where it can at least be considered for featured article. However, objections over relatively minor issues of writing style or formatting can be avoided at this stage; a comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written article should qualify for A-Class status even if it could use some minor further copyediting.

As it is the last step before the FA-review, the article should:

1. fully comply with all the GA-class criteria
2. comply with the FA-class criteria, except possibly some minor style issues.

The GA-class criteria are presented at Wikipedia:Good article criteria while the FA-class criteria are explained at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

Further reading

For medium insights on the different classes please read:

• Featured Article Criteria
• Assessment
• Good Article Criteria
• Good Articles
• Peer Review (although the Peer Review system described there seems dormant for the moment, according to their Talk page)

For expert insights on the different classes you may also read the corresponding talk pages:

• Talk:Featured Article Criteria
• Talk:Assessment
• Talk:Good Article Criteria
• Talk:Grading scheme

Review process

Nominate an article

To nominate an article, add it to the current candidates list below and write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes ~~~~.

Before nominating an article, it may be a good idea to put it through an automated peer-review, for example as explained at User:AndyZ/peerreviewer. This should help to detect the most obvious improvements needed, before the nomination.

Review an article

To review an article, follow the general steps explained at Wikipedia:Peer review, but bear in mind that an A-class review has slightly different objectives than a general peer-review.

As a first step it may be a good idea to put the proposed article through an automated peer-review. Given the context of chess, put particular attention to the fulfillment of the WP:NOR policy (e.g. for openings articles).

Some chess articles may also fall into the scope of another Wikiproject. For example the article on Alexander Alekhine is also in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. In such cases it may be a good idea to check that the article mostly complies with the Guidelines decided in this other WikiProject, as long as they are relevant for the given article. Possible conflicts between the Guidelines from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess and the Guidelines from the other relevant WikiProjects should be underlined.

Your review shall include a conclusion about the article, which can be:

• Comment: when you have questions and objections that need to be addressed before you can give your assessment.
• Support: which implies you think the article has reached the level of quality of A-class, and is almost ready to go for a FA-review.
• Assess as X-class: please indicate the level of quality you think the article has achieved, be it Stub-class, Start-class, C-class, B-class or GA-class.

Close a review

Reviews can be closed by anyone after:

1. a minimum of two editors (not too involved in writing the article) have reviewed the article,
2. at least three weeks have elapsed since the start of the review process,
3. at least one week has elapsed since the last comment was done in the review process.

A reviewed article will generally be promoted to A-Class if the following two conditions are met:

1. it has garnered at least three endorsements from uninvolved editors,
2. there are no substantive objections indicative of a major flaw in the article.

The process of closing the review shall be done in 3 steps:

1. add a few sentences to the review explaining why you are closing the review (see conditions above) and what assessment the article has reached.
2. copy/paste the review in the corresponding section "Closed reviews".
3. change the assessment in the Talk page of the reviewed article.
4. explain in the Talk page of the reviewed article that the review is closed and what assessment the article has reached. Put a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review so that anyone can come here to investigate the conclusions of the review.

A closed review cannot be reopened. The article shall go through a whole new review, but past positive comments can be considered as still valid, by default. That means if someone had assessed the article as A-class in a past review, it can be assumed that his assessment is still valid for a new review, unless the given assessor states otherwise.

Current candidates

I nominate McDonnell Gambit as in my opinion it is good enough, four example games and a well written introduction I believe mostly written by IHardlyThinkSo, I have written a bit of it myself but I don't think I am being to biased. Michael james campbell (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Closed reviews

Review of Ashot Nadanian

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Ashot Nadanian. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by MrsHudson
I would like to nominate Judit Polgár and Ashot Nadanian articles for A-class. I believe they are good enough. What do you think? --MrsHudson (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Review by SunCreator

Possible. For Judit Polgár the Illustrative games section is unreferenced. For Ashot Nadanian the notable games is poorly referenced and there is no reason to believe they are 'notable' as such. Also why is the Washington Post excerpt not a WP:COPYVIO. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Polgar's notable games are placed in the relevant section of her chessgames.com page. So they are probably notable. As for Nadanian, only the Bologan game is in the "Notable games" section of chessgames.com. But the Wu Shaobin game is well-known and has been published in several places, in particular in the "Genius in the Background" book by Karolyi. The game with Gurgenidze was published with Nadanian's annotations in chessville.com and he considers it as "one of my most memorable". Not sure about copivio (Washington Post). Looks OK to me, as it's just a small excerpt and author's name is mentioned. --MrsHudson (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I have fixed the problem with notable games in both articles. --MrsHudson (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Review by Yegishe
Support A class. The article is very informative, well structured and fully sourced. -- Yegishe (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Review by SyG

I checked the external links and found no problem. SyG (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Would it be possible to give more background on his family ? Has he sisters or brothers ? What was the profession of his parents ? Just a bit of context... SyG (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Would it be possible to know if his opening inventions have impacted chess ? I mean, are there reputable champions that use the Nadanian invention, or is it just a self-inflicted pain ? I think the notability is different. SyG (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately I could not find any information about his parents, sisters or brothers. There are plenty of articles and analysis devoted to Nadanian Variation and it has been played by world-class players such as Viktor Korchnoi, Bu Xiangzhi, Walter Browne, Smbat Lputian... Regards, --MrsHudson (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC) I have viewed the article once again and with the additions you have done I think it is fine, so I support A-class. SyG (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Review by I Do Care
Support. I have contributed a bit to the article. It has had an amazing improvement thanks to MrsHudson. After the copyediting by SyG, there seems to be little left to change. I Do Care (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion by SyG
All remarks and concerns expressed by the reviewers have been dealt with appropriately. More than three approvals have been gathered (Yegishe, SyG, I Do Care). So I shall close this review and pass the article to A-class. SyG (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Review of Judit Polgár

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Judit Polgár. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by MrsHudson
I would like to nominate Judit Polgár and Ashot Nadanian articles for A-class. I believe they are good enough. What do you think? --MrsHudson (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Review by SyG

General The article seems to lack a section "Influence on chess". See for example the section Alexander Alekhine#Influence on the game, that describes what openings he invented or rehabilitated. It would be interesting also to know if she has acted as a model for later woman players. SyG (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC) The article has too few illustrations, which makes an arid read. More pictures, or a few diagrams here and there, would help. SyG (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Done I checked that there are no links with a need for disambiguation. SyG (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I checked the external links are all fine, except this one: To Men, Losing to Judit Polgar Is No Disgrace : Tigress of the Chessboard Purrs Quietly and Pounces. It does not work on my computer. The link should be repaired, e.g. through the wayback machine. SyG (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I checked that the article has suitable prose size (38 kB). SyG (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I find the structure of the article messy. There is a section called "Carreer" but it includes things about her family. The section "Background" is too vague. The touch-move controversy could be placed elsewhere, e.g. in a special section "Controversies" that would group this one and the one on Fischer and jews. I think we should discuss and find a solid structure before changing. SyG (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Illustrative Games It is good that the games are linked to ChessGames, but then I do not see the point of giving the full notation of the games, as the reader just has to click on the link to find them. I would suggest removing all the moves, just leaving the link to ChessGames with the description. SyG (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I think the games should have a reference to a book, so that their notability (or "illustrativeness") is justified. SyG (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by SunCreator

Possible. For Judit Polgár the Illustrative games section is unreferenced. For Ashot Nadanian the notable games is poorly referenced and there is no reason to believe they are 'notable' as such. Also why is the Washington Post excerpt not a WP:COPYVIO. Regards,SunCreator (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Polgar's notable games are placed in the relevant section of her chessgames.com page. So they are probably notable. As for Nadanian, only the Bologan game is in the "Notable games" section of chessgames.com. But the Wu Shaobin game is well-known and has been published in several places, in particular in the "Genius in the Background" book by Karolyi. The game with Gurgenidze was published with Nadanian's annotations in chessville.com and he considers it as "one of my most memorable". Not sure about copivio (Washington Post). Looks OK to me, as it's just a small excerpt and author's name is mentioned. --MrsHudson (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I have fixed the problem with notable games in both articles. --MrsHudson (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Bubba73
Due to a dispute between editors over "strongest female chess player in history" in the first line, there are 12 references for it. I think that is excessive. Put two there and the rest in external links. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC) I agree. I have put the references in the appropriate section, instead of the Lead. SyG (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion by SyG: A-class not reached
The review has been open since 20th October, and has failed to gain three endorsements. Moreover, it seems noone is trying to fix the comments and concerns from the reviewers anymore. So I shall close the review and the article has failed to reach A-class. SyG (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Review of George H.D. Gossip

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/George H.D. Gossip. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by Krakatoa

I would like to nominate George H.D. Gossip for A-class. Philcha previously wrote on the WikiProject Chess discussion page that the article "is well above a typical B-class article ... Given that Gossip was not one of the giants and therefore the range of WP:RS about him is probably limited, I think the article is quite close to GA." (Of course, Philcha can and no doubt will speak for himself as to whether the current iteration warrants A-class.) I have done a lot of work on the article since then, addressing the (limited) issues he raised, and think it is in very good shape. I hope you all agree! Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Review by SyG

Comment The article is very good as it is, and I only have few remarks, based on this version of the article. SyG (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Response Thanks so much for your thorough and well-considered analysis! I have responded to it point by point below. Krakatoa (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Support As most of my concerns have been addressed below and the remaining ones are not that significant, I support the A-class for this article, based on this version. SyG (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Early life and education Done "There, he was brought up at Barlborough Hall, Derbyshire, the seat of his aunt, Mrs. Reaston Rodes, and at Hatfield, in Yorkshire." That makes six commas in just one sentence; I find the formulation heavy. SyG (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC) True; I have rewritten it, making it a bit less dense. See what you think. Krakatoa (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC) That is much better, great. SyG (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Done "Gossip could have taken a scholarship at Oxford University, but was unable to do so because..." Could he or could he not ? Maybe a formulation like "Gossip had the required scolar results to take a scholarship at Oxford University, but..." would be clearer for the reader. SyG (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Rewritten. Krakatoa (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Done "As a result, Gossip had to support himself through his own labors". Does that mean he eventually attended to Oxford, but had to work in the same time to finance his studies ? Or does that mean he did not attended to Oxford at all, but still had to work to survive ? SyG (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC) As I read the source, he was unable to accept the scholarship to Oxford, and had to begin working immediately. I have revised this to make this clearer. Krakatoa (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Chess career Nothing available on how and when he learned chess ? SyG (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC) No. Gossip is a pretty minor figure and there is very little written on him: there is an 1888 Columbia Chess Chronicle piece (Winter cites it; I don't have a copy of the original), Diggle's 1969 article, a shorter article by Diggle in 1983, a pretty nasty little article in The Oxford Companion to Chess, Winter's 2004 article, and that's about it. Gossip isn't in the chess encyclopedias by Golombek, Sunnucks, or Divinsky. He is mentioned only in passing in Fred Reinfeld's A Treasury of British Chess Masterpieces (for the Showalter game), America's Chess Heritage by Walter Korn, and Arthur Bisguier and Andrew Soltis, American Chess Masters from Morphy to Fischer. Krakatoa (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC) OK I can understand there is not much. I will strike that out. SyG (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Done I am not sure this section is compliant with MOS:NUM regarding to the notation of scores. Unless I am mistaken I will change that directly. SyG (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC) I have looked at MOS:NUM and tried to fix this. Krakatoa (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC) I have gone through the section again, making minor changes, and that seems great. SyG (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC) "Curt von Bardeleben won with 21.5 points; Isidor Gunsberg, who would narrowly lose an 1890-91 World Championship match to Steinitz, finished fourth with 19" Here and in the next paragraphs, I am not sure to understand what the point of mentioning the winners is. What is the link with Gossip ? SyG (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC) It is hard to understand the significance of Gossip's performance without looking at the performance of other significant players in the tournament. Just saying "Gossip scored 17.5/25, tying for 5th-6th" would be almost meaningless. For all we know, the tournament could be composed of near-beginners. The fact that Gossip was only one place and 1.5 points behind Gunsberg, who within the decade was playing Steinitz for the world championship, places Gossip's score in context, showing it to be a significant achievement. Krakatoa (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC) I see. The problem is, in this paragraph dedicated to the 1883 London Vizayanagaram minor tournament, there is only one sentence about Gossip's performance (the first one) for two sentences giving the context, without a clear flow. That seems a bit unbalanced to me. I would propose to put the last sentence (the one about the major tournament) into footnotes, or maybe to rewrite the paragraph a bit to place more clearly Gossip's result as a good performance. Here is a possible example: Gossip had his first significant competitive success in the 1883 London Vizayanagaram minor tournament. Although this tournament was weaker than the main 1883 London master tournament that took place at the same time (won by Zukertort ahead of Steinitz), it was still a tournament of master class with such chess champions as Curt von Bardeleben and Isidor Gunsberg. Hence Gossip's 5th-6th place out of 26 players is seen as a very good result. The paragraph is still a bit heavy, but that gives an idea of what I am considering. Opinion ? SyG (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC) I have rewritten the paragraph and, as per your suggestion, relegated discussion of the main tournament to a footnote. See what you think. Krakatoa (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I am still in doubt about the correct level of detail to give for each tournament, but I will strike it out for now. SyG (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Done "In 1884, Gossip emigrated from England to Melbourne, Australia" I would propose to move this sentence to the "Non-chess career" section. SyG (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Done. Krakatoa (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Done The last paragraph about his strength is good, but I am not sure it belongs to the section "Chess career". We could imagine to merge it into a section "Chess strength" with the notable games ? SyG (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC) It doesn't fit in perfectly anyplace, but IMO it is best left where it is. The paragraph places Gossip's chess career in context, showing that (at least according to Chessmetrics) he was a fairly strong player. Without that, the reader is apt to just think, "he finished last in a bunch of tournaments, he must have been a really weak player." To my mind, the discussion of his strength wouldn't fit in at all well with the notable games. I suppose we could just have a section "Chess strength" with only the Elo/Chessmetrics assessments, but I'm not wild about a section with just one paragraph. Krakatoa (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Fine for me. SyG (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC) On further reflection, I think the paragraph about Gossip's chess strength (per Elo and Chessmetrics) fits in best toward the end of the "Manner and reputation" section, after talking about whether Gossip is a "grandpatzer" or something stronger than that. I've accordingly moved it there. Krakatoa (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Chess books and articles Done "The book became the subject of biting criticism, largely because Gossip had included 27 illustrative games that he had (atypically) won against leading players of the day" Maybe it would be interesting to explain why including one's own games was viewed as inappropriate ? Did Gossip fail to include any of his losses ? SyG (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Gossip had 12 of his losses. I have added a block quote by Steinitz explaining why this was considered improper: in brief, Gossip didn't mention that these were skittles games, and that he had typically lost far more games to these players than he won; his presentation gave the misimpression that he was at least equal to, if not superior to, players who were far stronger than he was. I was a bit terse before, perhaps too long-winded now. See what you think. Krakatoa (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC) That is just great. SyG (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Done Is there a chance we get information on the number of copies sold for his Chess-Player's Manual ? SyG (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC) I have no idea how that would be possible. Diggle in his 1983 Newflash article (now quoted at the end of Winter 2004) says it "failed utterly" (I have added this), but I don't know how that translates to volumes sold, nor what would be a good number of sales of a chess book in those days. Krakatoa (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Does the Diggle quotation targets only the 1874 edition, or all editions together ? Because there seems to be a contradiction between the book "failing utterly" (Diggle) and the book being "one of the standard opening books of the time" (Hooper & Whyld). If the book was first a commercial disaster but then became a classic (and commercial success ?) thanks to latter edition, maybe that should be highlighted in the article. On that matter, the role of Lipschütz is mentioned but not emphasised. SyG (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Diggle referred specifically to the 1874 edition, and didn't mention the 1888 edition. Diggle wrote, "His 900-page Chess Player’s Manual, 1874, into which he put a tremendous amount of work, failed utterly . . . ." Hooper and Whyld, on the other hand, in the passage I cited, referred only to the 1888 edition, writing of Lipschütz, "His 122-page addendum to Gossip's Chess-Player's Manual helped to make this one of the standard opening books of the time." The two statements refer to different editions, and thus are not inconsistent. Responding to your point about Lipschütz's appendix perhaps not being emphasized enough, I have added a sentence to this section about it, mentioning the praise the New York Times reviewer gave it, and also to the lead, mentioning the appendix and that it was partly responsible for the success of the second (1888) edition. Krakatoa (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Having read again the various references, I understand we cannot really say that the success of the book was only thanks to Lipschütz's appendix (which was my original suspicion, I admit). So the treatment of Lipschütz reads good as it is. SyG (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Done "The June 1888 issue of the International Chess Magazine contained an article by Gossip that Robert John McCrary calls a very illuminating, important, and detailed account of the state of San Francisco chess." Is that really notable ? McCrary's article is part of a series published by the United States Chess Federation on the history of chess in the United States. McCrary (and presumably also the USCF) considers Gossip's article a significant contribution to U.S. chess history. Krakatoa (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC) All right, fine for me. SyG (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Notable games Done The second game has a problem of layout at the end, as the last sentence is somewhat crudely cut. I have tried to fix it but unsatisfactorily. SyG (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC) I have revised this, eliminating the last sentence and mentioning the double check in the previous sentence. Doing so isn't strictly necessary, but I thought that otherwise a lot of players would look at the position, not realize that Black is in check by two pieces, and think that simply ...Bxd6 would save Black in the final position. Krakatoa (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Well, I have no idea how to solve that, but the format of the last line is still weird, starting on the left while all others are put between the two diagrams. SyG (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC) I have now (I think) solved the formatting problem (the dreaded "sandwiching text between two diagrams", frowned on by WP:MOS, as I recall) as we did in First-move advantage in chess, by having two diagrams at left or two diagrams at right, not two diagrams at left and right with text sandwiched in between them. Krakatoa (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) If that is good for FA, probably that is good for me as well :-) SyG (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Review by Philcha

Comment I just noticed "Philcha can and no doubt will speak for himself ..." - God, you're hard taskmaster, Krakatoa! I'll assume the the eagle-eyed SyG has spotted any problems with refs. Response And here I thought you were just snubbing me! :-) Thanks for your thorough and thoughtful comments, which I will respond to below. Krakatoa (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC) OK, I think I've addressed all of your points. See what you think. Thanks again. Krakatoa (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Support I'm happy to pass this as A-class. Great job, Krakatoa! --Philcha (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Early life and education  Done Any info on the unusual name "Hatfeild", which looks like a misprint (especially as he was raised in Hatfield) but was apparently traditional in the family? OTOH The Aussie air ace and presumed grandson was named George Hatfield Dingley Gossip (or is the latter a misprint, as Winter's source says this info is from "an Australian website about World War One aces"). Diggle in G.H. Diggle in the April 1983 Newsflash had doubts about the spelling. Yes, "Hatfeild" screams out "typo", but it's not. See Chess Note 5100 Whyld's May 2001 BCM piece, referenced there, has a copy of Gossip's signature, which clearly reads "G. Hatfeild D. Gossip". Whyld says that Gossip's father was "George Hatfeild Gossip". My guess is that Gossip's son (presumably Gossip's grandson, bearing the surname "Gossip", would be fathered by one of his sons, not a daughter) went with "Hatfield" to spare the kid from having to correct people's misspelling of his middle name 1,000 times. Or it could be that the Australian aces website (I put a link to it in the article) used "Hatfield" thinking that "Hatfeild" must be wrong - or simply misreading "Hatfeild" as the more normal "Hatfield". Or the kid could have been named "Hatfeild", but started using "Hatfield" because he was tired of having a weird middle name and/or of having to correct people's constant misspelling of it. Note that the sources regarding "The Jew of Chamant" all list the real name of the pseudonymous author as "Hatfield", not the correct "Hatfeild". Krakatoa (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I added a reference (3, IIRC) about the "Hatfeild" thing. Krakatoa (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)  Done "the seat of his aunt" is correct but old-fashioned. "ancestral home of the family into which his aunt had married"? These Briticisms confuse me. I didn't know exactly what "seat of his aunt" meant, so I just copied it. Similarly, "the King of Wooden Spoonists", which is apparently a real thigh-slapper to you Brits, mystified me. (I just now looked up "wooden spoon" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary.) Krakatoa (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC) "seat of his aunt" could be material for another "bit of fun". Or you could just link to Family seat. BTW in Britain only pantomime heroes (traditionally played by young women!) slap their thighs :-) --Philcha (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Gad, I just can't avoid these faux pas! Yes, the "seat of his aunt" double entendre occurred to me, but I let it pass. I have rewritten the "seat of his aunt" thing along the lines you suggested. Krakatoa (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)  Done Krakatoa (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Isn't it fun being divided by a common language? --Philcha (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Indeed. Krakatoa (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Non-chess career and family  Done I've copyedited to make clear that the censuses were in UK.  Done I think the chronology is very unclear. Looking at the text and citations: "By 1864, Gossip was appearing in London chess circles" (section "Chess career" George Gossip (son, age 11 months) born 1870, presumably (?) in UK. 1871 in UK census Five years incl 1879 to 1880 in Paris. All his other kids born in UK? Yes - Helen in London, Harold and Mabel in East Borgholt (Whyld 2001, p. 263). I've added this fact to the text. Dunno for sure where little George was born. Krakatoa (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 1881 in UK census 1884 moved to Autralia 1888 left Australia (Winter), moved to USA. 1891 in UK census 1894 Montreal (letter 20 Oct) 1895-1897 Buffalo "vanishing for 12 years in 1895 and finally returning to this country (UK) to die at Liphook, Hants in 1907" (Winter) I agree that the chronology is very unclear. Gossip traveled an extraordinary amount (especially for those pre-air travel days) and it's hard to figure out when he was where. Diggle also mentions in the Newsflash article that Gossip lived in Germany at one point, but doesn't say when. Krakatoa (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Trying to address your concern, I've moved all the stuff about his travels to the Non-chess career/Family section, which I've renamed "Non-chess career, family, and world travels". See how it reads now. Krakatoa (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC) A lot better. But it still omits the fact that he apparently moved to London by 1864, mentioned in "Chess career". I don't think it would hurt to mention that in "... world travels". If you don't like that, perhaps you could move "Chess career" before "Non-chess career, family, and world travels", since chess is what makes him notable. --Philcha (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, I don't know whether he was living in London in 1864. He was "appearing" there, but he may have traveled there from elsewhere, as he did when he lived in East Bergholt (see below). Gossip's travels even within England were pretty extensive. I have avoided getting into them, since I daresay they would bore the s*** out of every non-British reader. To wit: As mentioned in the article, he grew up at his aunt's seat in Derbyshire, and at Hatfield, in Yorkshire. As mentioned in the article, his college education was at Westmorland. As mentioned in the article, he was appearing in London chess circles by 1864. In an 1873 letter, he wrote that he had spent "the greater part of my life" in the West Riding of Yorkshire (Diggle, p. 1). The 1871 census shows that he was living in London at the time of the census. As mentioned in the article, his child Helen was born in London c. 1872. But Diggle writes that as of the London 1872 tournament (2nd British Chess Federation Congress, held in July - Di Felice, p. 54) he was living "at East Bergholt, near Colchester" and "making chess-playing visits to London" (Diggle, p. 1). As mentioned in the article, his next children, Harold and Mabel, were born in East Bergholt (c. 1874 and 1879, respectively). As of the 1881 census, he was living in Ipswich. As of the 1891 census, he was back in London. As mentioned in the article, in 1907 he died in Liphook, Herts, England. Herts, Hants, whatever. I know as much about English geography as I do about wooden spoons and whingeing Poms. Krakatoa (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Krakatoa (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Chess career  Done I'd include Diggle's "the King of Wooden Spoonists". I like the examples of Gossip's tendency to bigotry given later, as I think WP is far too bloody solemn. There are other opportunities in the Winter page, mostly penned by Diggle. If sources give me an opportunity to lighten up I use them, even in paleontology and biology articles ("Pleistocene periwinkles" at Small shelly fauna, "Swiss Army knives" at Arthropod). One academic even used a couplet from Byron about "pukin' ... in the Euxine" in an article about mid-late Proterozoic atmosphere and ocean chemistry, and if I get a chance ...  Done Krakatoa (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I have worked "whingeing pom" into the article; I trust that this meets with your approval. btw, you might consider whether you can find a place for pearl necklace in one of your biology articles. :-) Krakatoa (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Nice work on "whingeing pom". I confess I chickened out on pearl necklace in Mollusc, but Sponge refers to breast implants and contraceptives. --Philcha (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)  Done The details of Gossip's last 12 years and death sit rather oddly at the end of this section. Issues like this make me prefer a straight chronological structure (sub-dived if appropriate) and then separate assessments of playing strength & style, personality, influence on the game, chess and other writings, etc. I've moved the "last 12 years and death" bit to the aforementioned "Non-chess career, family, and world travels" section. See how it looks. Krakatoa (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Chess books and articles  Done I'd reduce the big Steinitz quote to: Mr Gossip had practiced the unfair ruse of carefully preserving stray skittles games which he had happened to win or draw, generally after many defeats, against masters whose public records stood far above his own, ..., thus leading the public to believe that the author stood on a par with them, or was even their superior.  Done Krakatoa (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Manner and reputation  Done I love the story about the ledger! And the Steinitzian invective re the Steinitz gambit - with a little more grandiloquence Staunton could have written it! And "New York 1889, a major tournament where he won 11 games and finished above the bottom"!  Done The mixing and comparing of Elo and Chessmetrics ratings is confusing, as Elo and Chessmetrics numbers don't map on to each other. How about: By Arpad Elo's calculation, Gossip's strength during his five-year peak was equivalent to an Elo rating of 2310. Today FIDE, the World Chess Federation, often awards the Grandmaster title to players with Elo ratings of 2500 and above. Chessmetrics calculates that his peak was in April 1889, ranking him number 50 in the world at that time with a Chessmetrics score of 2470 (for comparison the top three Chessmetrics scores for April 1889 were over 2700). Chessmetrics also ranks him number 17 in the world during four one-month periods between February and July, 1873. Like Diggle, Chessmetrics regards New York 1889 as Gossip's best individual performance, concluding that he scored 39% against opponents with an average rating of 2595, giving him a performance rating of 2539 for that tournament.  Done Ref needed for "Today FIDE, the World Chess Federation, often awards the Grandmaster title to players with Elo ratings of 2500 and above."  Done Krakatoa (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)  Done What's the threshold Elo rating for the next level down (?IM)? 2400 (added that, and 2300 threshold for FM, given that Elo rated him at 2310). Krakatoa (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks for adding "FIDE master" as well, that really helps the perspective. Very wise of you to consign "GM / IM norm" to a footnote. We could almost use Gossip as a poster-child for the rise of world chess strength 1875-1900.  Done Need to explain why Chessmetrics says his peak was 1889 but gives him a much higher world ranking for 1873. Could point out that opportunities for top-level competition were still rare around 1873 - {{ cite book | author=Fine, R. | title=The World's Great Chess Games | publisher=Andre Deutsch | date=1952 | chapter=Wilhem Steinitz | page=31 }} Might also be worth pointing out that chess got a lot stronger between 1873 and 1889: Chessmetrics gives Gossip a score of 2352 for Jul 1873 but only Steinitz was over 2700 and only 3 others over 2600 (July 1873 rating list). I have revised this section along the lines you have suggested. I think it is still likely to be confusing to readers who haven't heard of Elo ratings, GM norms and such. Krakatoa (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC) In "However, Chessmetrics calculates that Gossip's highest rating was 2470 (number 50 in the world) in April 1889" the word "However" makes it look like a disagreement between Elo & Chessmetrics. I'd prefer e.g. "Another assessment system, Chessmetrics, calculates that ...". To keep things as clear as possible I'd suggest for the next sentence e.g. "By comparison, the world's three highest-rated players at that time had Chessmetrics scores exceeding 2700." What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC) That is fine. I've adopted your text, substituting "ratings over" for "scores exceeding" in the last sentence." Krakatoa (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Notable games  Done There's a playable version of Showalter-Gossip NY 1889 which should be included for the benefit of weaker players (such as me) - Jackson Whipps Showalter vs George Hatfeild Gossip, USA-06.Congress New York 1889; Scotch Game, Schmidt Variation (C45); 0-1. The annotations there are superficial.*Ditto Mikhail Chigorin vs George Hatfeild Gossip, USA-06.Congress New York 1889; Ponziani Opening, Steinitz Variation (C44); 1-0  Done Dude, I already cited those sites! Apparently not prominently enough, so I've now stated explicitly where the reader can play over the games. Krakatoa (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC) I apologise for my attack of amaurosis schacchistica --Philcha (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC) So I cited the sites, but your sight failed? Holy homonyms, Batman! Krakatoa (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC) External links  Done remove link to Winter (2004) as it's extensively cited.  Done Krakatoa (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Lead  Done I'd use Diggle's "the King of Wooden Spoonists" here.  Done Krakatoa (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)  Done I'd also say explicitly that Steinitz regarded Gossip's Manual (1888) as one of the best chess books available then - we know from Wilhelm_Steinitz#Personality that Steinitz was merciless with second-rate work. --Philcha (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)  Done Krakatoa (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Review by Voorlandt

Support I finally managed to get around reviewing an article. Without further delay, this article gets my full support for A-class (I think it does not need much or any work for FA actually). It is brilliantly written (reads very fluently, well structured, etc..) It is factual comprehensive, and gives a glimpse in the character Gossip (or how others perceived him). A few very minor points (I am sorry if I am duplicating stuff from other reviewers, I did not have time to go through those reviews): In the intro, "toward chess critics" does not sound good to me. I would say "towards chess critics" (they are probably both correct?) Yes, apparently they are both correct: the dictionaries seem to treat the two words as interchangeable. See, e.g., this. Unfortunately, I have the opposite reaction to you: "towards" makes me cringe. I am pretty sure I have actually corrected other people's use of "towards" in Wikipedia articles because I thought it was wrong. Since both are apparently considered correct, and I can't stand "towards", I've left it alone. Krakatoa (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC) He seems to have written a lot about non-chess related topics too, in a wide variety of magazines. Were these essays on sociology/economy/politics, or did he write as a news reporter? (This was not 100% clear to me as I am not familiar with the publications) About all I know on that subject is from the Columbia Chess Chronicle article that Winter quotes from. I am also not familiar with them except for the San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner, which apparently were then (as now, I believe) the two principal S.F. newspapers. Except for The Advertiser (Adelaide), all of the other publications that Gossip wrote for are apparently out of business (not surprisingly, given the lapse of 120 years or so). The Columbia Chess Chronicle article says, as I recall, that Gossip wrote "lead and other" articles for the various publications. I would guess from this that some were relatively short news items and others more in-depth (the "Chinese question" article, for example). But that's just a guess. Krakatoa (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Australian Chess Championship should be wikified somewhere (or perhaps I missed it). Yes. Done. Krakatoa (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC) "You can play the game over here" stands a bit out, since it is addressing the reader for the first time, perhaps better put in footnotes. I am happy to do this whatever way people think is best. I originally (as in First-move advantage in chess) just provided the ChessGames.com links as references, without the direction "You can play over the game here." But then Philcha wrote in his review that I should provide links to the ChessGames.com URLs where people could play over the games. I said that I had, but since I had obviously done so too subtly, I would make it explicit. (See discussion under Notable games above.) As I say, I'm willing to do it either way, but now I kind of like it the current way, which makes it explicit to the reader. Realistically, if one doesn't make it explicit, many readers won't read the footnotes, won't realize that they can play over the games without getting out a board (if Philcha, going over the article with a fine-toothed comb, didn't realize that, the lay reader, who's not going over the article so carefully and has never heard of ChessGames.com, won't), and won't play over the games at all. So I'm inclined to think that the current way is the most user-friendly. Krakatoa (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Philcha, apparently having read our exchange, suggested another approach: putting the links in the diagram captions. That seemed like a brilliant idea, but I tried it and it made the captions disappear?! See [1]. I've now reworded the sentence to avoid the "You"/speaking to the reader thing. Now it reads "The game can be played over here." Hope that addresses your issue. Krakatoa (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Not having done one for a while I'd forgotten a quirk - simple links ([url title]) do that, but {{cite web}} works OK. Sorry! --Philcha (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC) OK, that works, more or less. The quotation marks and period look a little funky - is there a way to get rid of those? Krakatoa (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Damn! The maintainers of the various citation templates have been trying to standardise outputs and now we have quotes. The problem is that {{hidden}} cannot handle ordinary external links in either the caption or the hidden text. I've posted a message at Template_talk:Hidden#Cannot handle external links. --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Terrific effort! Voorlandt (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks again! Having lost my job two years ago because I was more concerned with futilely opposing the Bush regime than amassing billable hours, Wikipedia is one of the few pleasures I have left in life these days. :P Krakatoa (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC) I know exactly what you are talking about. I did the same thing when I was without a job, even went as far as learning chinese to write the Chinese Chess Championship :). Thanks as well for the replies to my comments (which I broadly agree with). Voorlandt (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Wow! Learning Chinese?! Now that's serious Wikipediafying - or maybe you're just smarter than I am. Krakatoa (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion by SyG

The three conditions for closing the review are now met: more than two editors have reviewed the article, more than three weeks have passed since the beginning (12/11/2008) of this review, more than one week has passed since the last comment (17/12/2008) was made in this review. The two conditions for promoting the article are met: at least three reviewers (Philcha, Voorlandt and myself) have expressed their support for A-class, no significant objections are still opened. Therefore I am glad to pass this article as A-class. Good job, Krakatoa ! SyG (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Review of Rules of chess

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Rules of chess. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by Bubba73
I want to formally nominate rules of chess for GA, but first I'll ask for reviews here. I've made comments on the Talk page. Bubba73 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2008

Review by SyG

Support for GA-class As mentioned earlier, I think the article is ready for a GA-review. Actually I have already nominated the article at WP:GAC, so it is only a matter of time. SyG (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Comment As asked for by the nominator, I will review this article with the objective of GA-class in mind, so please forgive me if the review is not as thorough as you may want. Here are my first comments, based on this version of the article. General remarks Done There is a few inconsistencies about numbers in letters, I will change them as I stumble upon. I hope I have changed them all now. SyG (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done Most references do not have a proper title, I will change them as I stumble upon. They are all correct now. SyG (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done Some diagrams have the caption at left, others have it centered. Consistency would be nice. They are all at left now. SyG (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done The article uses several systems of citation (footnotes, harvard, ...). It is necessary to have only one, per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation styles. Only Harvard style is used for citation is used now, even if another style is used for footnotes. I have limited experience on the subject but I believe it is fine. SyG (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC) I think it uses the best method - Author/date (Harvard) for references, footnotes for addition information or explanation. The USCF differences and some minor points are in the footnotes. Bubba73 (talk), 16:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC) What about a section on famous occasions when the rules were breached, like when Kasparov castled against Polgar although he had already moved his King ? That could liven a bit the article without going out of the subject ? The touch-move rule has one. The article castling has one. Bubba73 (talk), 01:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I am taking that as a polite "No", and I understand there is no point in repeating the same anecdotes in various articles, so I will strike that out for me. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Well, actually the Kaspy-Polgar one isn't over there, but another one is. I don't have a source for Kaspy-Polgar. That could be in there. Bubba73 (talk), 16:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I was mistaken! The Kasparov-Polgar incident was about Kasparov having touched a piece and then deciding to move another one. Here are some online sources: anecdotes.chessdom.com controltheweb SyG (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Actually he briefly released the piece, but then moved the same piece to a different square. Bubba73 (talk), 21:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC) ←The game: [2]. Bubba73 (talk), 22:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Should this be: added as a subsection added within the section that has the rule added as a footnote not added? Bubba73 (talk), 00:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC) I... don't know ! A subsection is probably too much, as this anecdote is already described in the articles about Kasparov and Polgar. Maybe a brief mention in the section that has the rule, or a footnote. Or even not adding it at all, I am completely neutral on this. SyG (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Lead Done I would try to avoid putting references in the Lead, they are less obstrusive in the main body of the article. There are no more references in the Lead. SyG (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done "these standard chess rules are widely accepted by the international organization FIDE". Which "standard chess rules" ? The ones explained in the article of Wikipedia ? It does not go well with the sentence just before, in which we say that different places have different rules. the reader may not understand the word "widely" in the sentence. If they are accepted by FIDE this is only 1 organisation, so "widely" does not mean much. Or does that mean "most of the rules are accepted by FIDE, but not all" ? The sentence has been restructured accordingly. SyG (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done "slightly modified by national organizations such as the US Chess Federation." Why is the USCF cited ? What does it bring to the reader ? Why not simply "slightly modified by national organizations." ? The USCF is not in the Lead anymore. SyG (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done "There are slight variations of the rules for fast chess, correspondence chess, chess variants, etc." What does "etc" aims for ? If that aims for "all the chess forms that do not have exactly the same rules", the sentence becomes a tautology. It does not seem right to say there are slight variations for chess variants. In that latter case the variations can be huge. Also, the chess variants are not explained in the next sections of the article, so they should not be cited in the Lead. When we say the rules for fast chess are slight variations, this implies fast chess is a secondary class of chess while 2h chess are the main class. Is it categorised as such in the rules ? I made some changes, taking out "slight" and "etc".Bubba73 (talk), 01:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Fine for me. SyG (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Done "Rules also govern (...) games that are played under time control." I may be missing the meaning here, it reads like an evidence to me. I have slightly changed the sentence. SyG (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Initial setup Done "The boards commonly used for chess tournaments have (...) green and buff squares" There are two references, but I do not see where they support this statement. The statement has been nuanced. SyG (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done I think the second paragraph is superfluous and has few to do with the rules of chess. I would delete it. This second paragraph has mostly disappeared. SyG (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Gameplay Done "Play continues until a king is checkmated, a player resigns, or a draw is declared" What about losing on time ? A sentence has been added to cover this case. SyG (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done "Unlike Go, where the order of play is determined by the relative skills and handicaps of the players, the official chess rules do not include a procedure for determining who plays White." I do not think the reference to Go is that useful, as most readers will not know Go. I took out that phras. Bubba73 (talk), 01:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Fine for me. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Done diagram "Moves of a king" mixes the moves of the king and the castling. I would suggest to let only the moves of the king, while a diagram on castling can be added in the specific subsection about casting. The suggestion has been implemented. SyG (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done diagram "Moves of a pawn" has a very long caption, which hurts layout. More problematic, it uses chess notation of moves that has not been explained: what does "last Black move was g7-g5" mean ? The caption has been shortened and the notation clarified. SyG (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done As indicated on the Talk page, I like Bubba73's suggestion to change the presentation, with "en passant" and promotion upgraded to full subsections. The change in presentation has been implemented. SyG (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done "Alternatively, an inverted rook may be used to represent a queen, or the pawn on its side can be used and the player should indicate which piece it represents" Really ? In France there is a hot debate whether it is actually permitted or not, and some players have argued that "a rook is a rook is a rook", be it reversed or not. Could we mention the precise text of FIDE allowing that ? The sentence has been removed. SyG (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done in the subsection "Castling", maybe we should mention that it is authorised to move both pieces in the same time, but not to start with the rook. I cannot find that in the rules, so I have added a footnote explaining why it is forbidden. SyG (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Done in the subsection "Check", the caption of the diagram is obscure to the reader ("Harkness"). The caption has been clarified. SyG (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done in the subsection "Check", we use chess notation about the squares ("e5", "f4") without having explained to the reader how that works. The word "square" has been added, which should be enough for any reader with a brain to figure out. and what about the other readers ?? SyG (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Besides adding the word "square" I added a small section "Terminology" which explains ranks and files and how squares are named. I don't think that the reader should have to go to algebraic chess notation, so just the sqaure names are used. That is explained in that section, with a diagram. Bubba73 (talk), 15:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC) End of the game Done No mention of losing on time ? A subsection on losing on time has been added. SyG (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done diagram has caption "Harkness", which does not bring much to the reader. The caption has been clarified. SyG (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC) in the subsection "Resigning", how about mentioning this game when Kramnick thought his opponent was offering a draw, while he was in reality resigning in a draw position ? (unfortunately I do not remember the name of the opponent; maybe Guelfand or Svidler) I don't know about that game or have a reference. Bubba73 (talk), 01:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I have looked for this game a bit but I have not been able to find it back, so I will strike that out. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Done "Players would be likely to agree to a draw since it is a theoretical draw" (caption of second diagram). I find this example much too complex for the reader. Most players under 2000 Elo would not agree to a draw in this position, not knowing it is a theoretical draw. Also, the notion of "theoretical draw" is not defined in the article and is too difficult to explain. Can we find something easier ? The diagram has been removed. SyG (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Competition rules Done the subsection "Touch-move rule" does not explain what happens if the touched piece cannot perform a legal move. A sentence has been added covering this case. SyG (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Done at the beginning of the game, it is customary to let his opponent touch all his pieces to place them exactly in the centre of the squares, without requiring him to say "j'adoube" every time. The rules don't say anything about this, but I did change it to talk about what happens once the game starts. Bubba73 (talk), 01:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Fine for me. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Done "Only the player whose turn it is to move may touch the pieces" I find the structure of the sentence a bit heavy, can we find something lighter ? I have changed the sentence. SyG (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Done "Each player must make all his moves in a specified time, or be subject to forfeiting the game." Here we should explain that "specified time" may only mean a general formula, like 2h + 30s per move, and not necessarily a specified duration. The explanation has been deepened. SyG (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC) "If there is a checkmate on the board, the player delivering checkmate wins instantly, no matter what is subsequently noticed about the time." What if the player has not noticed the checkmate, accepts his defeat on time, and comes back two hours latter claiming there was a checkmate on the board ? I don't think that situation is covered anywhere. Bubba73 (talk), 22:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC) I have changed the sentence to avoid this possibility. SyG (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC) My change has been reverted :-( so the sentence is still unclear. SyG (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC) The rules don't say anything about noticing the checkmate before noticing that the time has run out. The way I read the rule is that if there is a checkmate on the board, that is what matters. Players don't have to announce checkmate. So if a move is made on the board making a checkmate, then it is noticed that the player's time expired, and then it is pointed out that there is a checkmate on the board, the game ends in checkmate. Bubba73 (talk), 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Article 5.1 says that checkmate ends the game. Somewhere else it says that if it is noticed later that the time ran out, it doesn't matter - the checkmate wins. So even after it was noticed that time ran out, if it is established that there was a checkmate, the game ends in checkmate. Bubba73 (talk), 22:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC) The player doing the checkmate doesn't have to announce it or stop his clock or stop both clocks. If he makes a move that checkmates, he can sit there and let his time run out, the opponent can call attention to that, but the checkmate takes priority. Bubba73 (talk), 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Done If both players run out of time, it is a sudden death time control, and it can be established who ran out of time first, what happens ? I think it is implied elsewhere that the one whose time ran out loses. Bubba73 (talk), 22:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC) I have changed the sentence accordingly. SyG (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Done "For example, a king and rook versus a king, bishop, and pawn cannot be won by either player virtually all of the time" Not true, these games will be won most of the time because most chess players (me included) are patzers who lose a piece every 10 moves. This sentence has been removed. SyG (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Irregularities Done In the first paragraph, the article does not mention that an illegal move in competition will usually allow a time sanction from the arbiter, even if it is not blitz chess. I think I added a little on that. Expand if needed. Bubba73 (talk), 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I do not see mention of that in the first paragraph, only in the second. But maybe I am fully inventing, so please allow me to ask the question: in standard chess (i.e. non-blitz), when there is an illegal move, does the arbiter allow some additional time to the plaintiff ? SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Article 7.4 says that the arbiter can adjust the time according to the best evidence. I added a sentence or two and moved the USCF rule to a footnote. Bubba73 (talk), 22:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Great ! SyG (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC) in the subsection "Irregularities", what happens if there are problems with the clock ? For example the clock was not started with the correct amount of time, or the clock stopped during the game ? The rules say to get a working clock, but I didn't think that was really needed in the article. Add it if you think it is needed. Bubba73 (talk), 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC) The thing is, sometimes you think you have a working clock, and then in the middle of the game it does not work anymore. Do the rules say sometimes on these cases ? SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Article 6.10 says that a defective clock is to be replaced and that the arbiter shall use his best judgment as to what time to set for the new clock. I don't think this is needed in the article because we can't cover all of the rules and this is a "what if" situation and the remedy is pretty obvious. Bubba73 (talk), 22:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC) I am unsure, it is not that obvious to me. For example can the arbiter: continue the game with full time for both players ? continue the game with the same amount of time for both players ? restart the game from scratch (i.e. beginning position) ? cancel the game and give half a point to both players ? SyG (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Equipment Done There are redundancies between this section and the beginning of the section "Initial setup". I would advise to displace most of it in "Equipment". I removed most of the redundancies that were in Initial setup. Bubba73 (talk), 01:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I trimmed down a little bit as well, and organised the paragraph between a paragraph on the chessboard and a paragraph on the chess pieces. I will try to add a third paragraph on the clock. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC) History Currently the section is organised between one unnamed subsection on the rules themselves, and another subsection on the codification of the rules. I am not completely convinced this is the best approach. I would suggest a full chronological structure, presenting both the changed of the rules and the codification as they go by. The first subsection is too poor on dates, even vague ones. Each change of period should be mentioned. See below.Bubba73 (talk), 02:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC) These are my first remarks. All in all I find the article well balanced, which was not that easy to do given the risk of going into unneccessary details. Good job! SyG (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Remarks by Sjakkalle

Wasn't this the article which had to be deleted at all cost for violating WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE? :-) Anyway, I just made one change to the article, because 3x repetition or 50-move rule can only be declared by the player on the move, and it can be claimed simply by declaring an intention to make a 3x or 50 move situation arise with the next move. I had a bit of trouble in formulating a short and sweet sentence to that effect, (apologies for that) but what stood there before (that either player could claim the draw when the situation is there) was a bit inaccurate. I see that Schiller's "Official Rules of Chess" is frequently cited, this is of course OK, but those rules are only official in the US. Most, if not all, other countries go by the FIDE laws handbook here, laws of chess. For game basics, like the movement of the knight and the rules of stalemate and checkmate, this doesn't matter, but on issues like claiming a draw because the opponent is only trying to run you out of time, there are differences. (USCF has an "insufficient losing chances" rule, FIDE has "§10.2" about "normal means".) I think a reference to the relevant FIDE law is as important as the relevant USCF law. Otherwise, I think this is a strong article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Some replies to/support of the points listed by SyG Overturned rooks are not legal, if you look through the chesscafe.com articles (Arbiter's Notebook) by Geurt Gijssen you will see that issue discussed. The issue of boards being green and buff has nothing to do with the rules, it is the fact that the squares are light and dark which matters. Incidentally, I think the line might be another piece of US-centrism, from pictures of tournaments throughout Europe, I think brown is the most common board color in Europe, and all my 88 rated games have been played on brown boards, whether they're wooden or plastic. But if we are going to discuss board color, that is for Chessboard not Rules of chess. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC) More ridiculous nagging from Sjakkalle "No matter what the actual color of the board, the lighter-colored squares are called "white", and the darker-colored squares are called "black"". Is this true? I have often heard the squares referred to as "light" and "dark", simply to avoid confusion with the "white" and "black" of the pieces. This tutorial uses "light" and "dark" for example. I don't think this is a big deal though as from a mathematical viewpoint, chess could be played just fine on a monochromatic board. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC) The USCF Rulebook says black and white squares, but you are right - I've almost always heard/read light and dark squares, e.g. light-colored bishop. Bubba73 (talk), 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Except that commentaries on play and articles on strategy as often use e.g. "white-square weakness", "white-squared-bishop", "black-square ...", etc. If a ref is needed, a book on the French or Dutch might helpful as black-square weakness is a common problem for Black. -- Philcha (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Replies to both of the above Schiller's book is based on the FIDE rules. That's why I used it most often. The main chapter of it follows the FIDE Articles. Chapter 16 is a two-page chapter on USCF rules. Bubba73 (talk), 18:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks to everyone for your suggestions. Bubba73 (talk), 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC) "Inverted rook" for a promoted piece - it isn't in the FIDE rules, but it is in Schiller's book. (Even the pawn on the side is in there, but that horrifies me since the pawn can roll to another square.) I'll make it a footnote. Bubba73 (talk), 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Castling by moving both pieces at the same time - the rules say that moves are to be made with only one hand. Under USCF rules, though, I think there is no penalty for moving both at the same time, just a warning. (There is even no penalty for moving the rook first in USCF!!!) I suppose you could pick up the king, pick up the rook, release the rook, and then release the king, but this is not covered. So it isn't clear to me what FIDE allows here. Bubba73 (talk), 23:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC) As far as using algebraic notation, I've changed references to say "the e6 square" and things like that. I hope that with the files and ranks labeled, that will be clear to readers. What do you think? "how about mentioning this game when Kramnick thought his opponent was offering a draw, - I didn't know about that or know a reference. It really helps to have other people reading this fresh. Bubba73 (talk), 00:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Position to illustrate draw by agreement - I didn't add this position, but I thought it was about as simple as it could be. Most draws by agreement have a more complex position. So far I haven't found a reference to a good position. If a better position isn't found, I suggest that it be removed. Bubba73 (talk), 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC) "What if the player has not noticed the checkmate, accepts his defeat on time, and comes back two hours latter claiming there was a checkmate on the board ?" "If both players run out of time, it is a sudden death time control, and it can be established who ran out of time first, what happens ?" The rules don't seem to say. Second one is covered earlier in the section - you lose if your time expires (except for the impossible to checkmate clause). Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC) "In the first paragraph, the article does not mention that an illegal move in competition will usually allow a time sanction from the arbiter, even if it is not blitz chess." "in the subsection "Irregularities", what happens if there are problems with the clock? For example the clock was not started with the correct amount of time, or the clock stopped during the game ?" First one - I think this would be getting into too many details. Also the rule says that the arbiter will try to restore the clock to what it was before the illegal move, i.e. nono time penalty. Second one, I don't know if the rules say. Bubba73 (talk), 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC) History and codification: I got the best dates I could. Sometimes the sources only said "middle ages", "17th century", etc. There was no specific date for these changes, usually they were adopted in some place and gradually spread. Sometimes it took a couple of centuries to become widespread. Most of the time the rules were different depending on the location. I split the section like that so that "history" would be the history of the rules themselves and codification would be about how they were written into books, etc. One of the sources lists them by groups of changes like done in the history section. The codification section is about rulebooks or when sets of rules were printed, and those are in chronological order. But I don't think mixing the codification with the history of the rules is good because often rules came into existence long before they were codified. Also, the codification section mostly covers more recent events than the history section. Bubba73 (talk), 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC) I think I've addressed all of the comments of the reviewers, and I made changes for most of them. For the few I didn't change I commented on them above. Please take another look. Bubba73 (talk), 18:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the changes! I personally think the article is ready for GA, so I have nominated it for GA-review. The GA process is currently under an important backlog, so it is best to fix a date as early as possible so that our article climbs the waiting queue. I would expect the GA-review to start in one month, which gives us more-than-enough time to fix the remaining small bits here and there. SyG (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Review by Philcha

Lead "The rules continued to be slightly modified until the early 19th century, when they reached essentially their current form" does not appear to match the text, where Staunton's Chess Praxis (1860), Johann Berger (when?) and Handbuch des Schachspiels (1843 onwards) are the main codifications. Of course "essentially" leaves scope for debate. I'd prefer to drop "essentially" and say, "until the mid 19th century". Well, there have been some small changes since then. Bubba73 (talk), 17:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I think the changes up to mid 19th century were more significant, as they affected the moves: Bledow concluded multiple queens should be allowed; IIRC one of the rules Staunton wanted to standadise was about castling. - Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Initial setup A GA reviewer might well complain about 2 lists of short phrases (Wikipedia:Embedded list). I know strict MOS compliance is not required for GA, but reveiwers often push a bit further. I'd de-listify the pieces, and defend the 2nd list as helping beginners to do the set-up step-by-step. There's a lot of white space at the end, because of the 2 images, which I agree are essential. If there's a smaller version of the "Chess pieces" box, about the height of a "large" chess diagram, I'd put them side-by-side in a right-aligned table (I'll do the table if needed). -- Philcha (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Terminology Should link to Algebraic chess notation - possibly as "main article". Should explain the reason for this section, e.g. these occur in almost all books & articles. Must explain that algebraic co-ordinates are always from the White player's side of the board, as "5th rank" are relative to each player. Explanation of "rank" doesn't work for me. The following is a bit long but I think gets the spirit: "Sometimes books and articles highlight one aspect of the board or of a piece's position because it has become stratecially important, for example ..." Should add e.g. "g file" or "h file" (I picked these as commmon attack routes) or "c file" (battleground of Sicilian and many QP / English / Catalan games). I don't think "Terminology" is the right title for the current content, which is about e.g. "Identifyng locations on the board". I'd get round reviewers' prejudice against bullet lists by using "definition list" format. Section needs refs for: Algebraic chess notation "rank" and "file" "nth rank" -- Philcha (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC) This section was added just a few days ago. I wanted to avoid the reader having to get into algebraic chess notation at this point. However, in this article squares are designated by their algebraic notation name, and ranks and files are mentioned too. I thought it would be good to add a little bit of terminology up front. Of course, list of chess terms has entries for rank and file, so the article can just link to these. In fact it does link in at least a couple of places. So maybe the definition here can be omitted. Bubba73 (talk), 17:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Gameplay I think "In addition, if the game is being played under a time control, the game ends if one player uses all of his alloted time players lose if they exceed the [[#Time control | time limit]]" would be more accurate.  Done Bubba73 (talk), 17:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Movement  Done I'm not sure this is in the right place. The business about hands is appropriate for normal over-the-board competition but there are enough exceptions: correspondence & online games; tournaments involving computers; over-the-board play involving physically-handicapped players. I suggest it should be in competition rules, with qualifications like the ones I've mentioned. OK. I put it these so that the section would have some text in it before the subsections started. Bubba73 (talk), 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC) This is in Article 4 of the FIDE rules, which also has touch-move, so I moved it down there. Bubba73 (talk), 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Basic moves Needs at least one ref, e.g range of pages in any of thousands of decent books. "The pawn is also involved in the two special moves en passant and promotion, below": I'd prefer and interna link to where there special features are described. If there's no convenient section header or you think it mmigh change, you can use {{anchor}} to create a destination name for the link(s).  Done Bubba73 (talk), 17:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Castling  Done Forgive me if I'm being dumb, but why is "The king and the rook must be on the same rank" needed? I would think "The player must never have moved either the king or the rook involved in castling" implies this. This is in the actual rules and the reason is explained in the footnote (otherwise the rule would allow castling with a rook that was the result of a pawn promotion on e8 or e1). There also used to be a sentence in the article about that, but I took it out because it is covered by the footnote. Resolved Bubba73 (talk), 17:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Could do with a start position diagram, with arrows showing the movement of the pieces involved. Since this would need arrows, would need to a be a normal image rather than a chess diagram template. Then put them side-by-side to minimise white space between sections. Well, the starting position of the pieces is shown earlier. I'm not sure this is needed. Bubba73 (talk), 17:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry for not being clear, I didn't mean full board, I meant e.g. White K on e1, R on h1. Arrow from e1 to g1. Arrow h1 to f1. Black K on e8, R on a8. Arrow from e8 to c9. Arrow a8 to d8. -- Philcha (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC) That can't be done with the standard chess diagrams. I think what we have is OK. As an alternative, there could be a diagram showing the kings and rooks in uncastled positions, as castling does. Bubba73 (talk), 21:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Standard diagram would be OK. -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC) I added a diagram, but it needs to be formatted better (too much white space). Bubba73 (talk), 04:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Now side by side - does that work for you? -- Philcha (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Perfect! Bubba73 (talk), 21:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC) En passant  Done Needs to clarify which pawn is which every time, e.g. "player X's pawn".  Done Needs a ref. I reworded this, see if it is OK now. Has a ref now. Bubba73 (talk), 17:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC) It's a bugger to explain! How about one of: If A's pawn moves forward two squares and B has a pawn on his fifth rank and on an adjacent file, B's pawn can capture A's pawn as if A's pawn had only moved one square. If one player's pawn moves forward two squares and the second player has a pawn on his fifth rank and on an adjacent file, the second player's pawn can capture the first player's pawn as if the fisrt player's p[awn had only moved one square. -- Philcha (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Either of those is OK with me. If I had to pick, I'd pick the first one. Bubba73 (talk), 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Inserted first one. -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Pawn promotion  Done Should clarify that promoting player can have upmteen of a piece. Final position of Capablanca-Alekhine World Championship Match 1927 game 11 would be a nice exmaple.  Done Needs a ref. Has a ref. The rules don't state how many pieces you can have, but I think the article does state that it is not limited to captured pieces, so I think this is an obvious consequence of the rules and what the article says. Bubba73 (talk), 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Obvious if you've had a little experience, but not to a complete beginner. I saw the discussion of how often this article is accessed. A lot of newbies appear to be using it as a manual. -- Philcha (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC) OK, I've added this and the one about double check as footnotes. Incorporate them into the article if you think that would be better. Bubba73 (talk), 02:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC) In main text. -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Check  Done Should mention double check forces king move.  Done Needs a ref. Has a ref. I don't think this is in the rules, but it is an obvious consequence. Bubba73 (talk), 17:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Obvious if you've had a little experience, but not to a complete beginner. I saw the discussion of how often this article is accessed. A lot of newbies appear to be using it as a manual. -- Philcha (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC) In main text. -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC) End of the game Draws "perpetual check" needs ref for past status and present status.  Done Bubba73 (talk), 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Time control A 2nd para about time control, with a larger section to come! I see why there are 2 brief early mentions. I suggest "loses if he / she / it exceeds any time limit that is in force", linking "time limit" to main section as described above. Competition rules Should note that these mainly apply to OTB play between non-handicapped humans, as above.  Done Bubba73 (talk), 18:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Timing In "Time controls vary: sometimes each player will have a limited amount of time to make all of their moves whereas in other cases each player may have a certain amount of time to make a certain number of moves. Also, the player may gain a small amount of additional time for each move made", I think "also" is confusing. Does this apply to both fixed time and time per N moves, or to only one, or is it a separate scheme? "If player A calls attention to the fact that player B is out of time, player A is not out of time, and player A has the possibility to checkmate, even against the most unskilled defense, then player A wins automatically. If player A does not have the possibility of checkmate then the game is a draw" confused me. I'd think that if player A does not have the possibility of checkmate then B loses on time. If player B's time runs out there must be some sequence of moves that could lead to him being checkmated, otherwise it is a draw. I've reworded these - see if they are OK now. Bubba73 (talk), 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I've just read Heisman's Time Management During a Chess Game, which my browser dates as 18 June 2003, and it seem the rules have changed since last time I used a chess clock (I won't confess about when!). Heisman says: "The most recent side-effect of the sudden death time limit is the US Chess Federation's "insufficient losing chances" rule. This states that if you are NOT playing with a time delay clock and you are about to lose on time in a clearly non-losing position, you can claim a draw." Is this a universal rule or limited to the USCF? As far as I know, only the USCF has that rule. FIDE is different. Bubba73 (talk), 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC) "If you were playing without a time delay - and in a tournament that did not allow "insufficient losing chances" - would you rather be up a Queen in the middlegame with 10 seconds left or be down a Queen with 10 minutes left?" This implies that the "insufficient losing chances" clause is used / ignored at the tournament's discretion. Well, it is USCF only. Bubba73 (talk), 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC) The FIDE Handbook: General Rules and Recommendations for Tournaments: Time Control section says, "There is a single time control for all major FIDE events: 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one" and mentions no "insufficient losing chances"provision. But section 6.10 of Laws of Chess says, "Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay." This accords with what you wrote, although it does not explain who judges whether "the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay." US Chess: Clock Rules apparently allows the tournament director to make a "wet finger" guess about whether player A can force mate. The page carries a warning "This page is part of our old website and the information on it may no longer be current. Please check our home page main.uschess.org for more current information." However I got nothing using their search engine. My bewildered conclusions: The article should include "(if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate) even with the most unskilled counterplay". It says that in effect, about whether or not there being a sequence of legal moves that results in checkmate. Bubba73 (talk), 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC) It should state that FIDE's rules do not specify how to decide this. It should state that the USCF makes it a draw if "The draw shall be awarded if the director believes that a Class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both having ample time." That is in a footnote. Bubba73 (talk), 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Since neither FIDE nor the USCF page says the "insufficient losing chances" rule may be used or ignored at a tournament's choice, I'd ignore Heiman's implication that tournaments have a choice. I don't think there is a choice - it depends on USCF or not. I think he was just comparing the differing rules. Bubba73 (talk), 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I don't know when the rules changed, but Heisman implies it happened after the 1990 Kasparov-Karpov match. So that readers will understand "lost on time" in older literature, the article should state that before 1990 (if you have no better fix on the date), a player who ran out of time lost, irrespective of how good his / her position was. -- I have rulebooks from different periods, I'll see if I can find out. Bubba73 (talk), 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I have a 1978 USCF rulebook which I got about 1982 or 83. It doesn't say anything about insufficient losing chances or possible checkmate against unskilled play. Of course, this was before Sudden Death and before delay clocks. In the margin I wrote "also must have mating material", so that must have been added somewhere around the early 1980s, but I can't be sure. Bubba73 (talk), 22:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Might be best to ask Krakatoa when it changed, and for a ref. -- Philcha (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Yes, he has 1500 chess books, which is 1300 more than I have. Secondly, I have had periods of chess inactivity that lasted years. Bubba73 (talk), 23:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC) The 1992 edition of the Oxford Companion doesn't have it either. Of course, it might not have been updated. Bubba73 (talk), 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC) I know that FIDE made changes in 1992, so that is probably when it happened, but I don't have any reference. Bubba73 (talk), 03:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Philcha (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Conduct Re "outside info" might be nice to allude to Kramnik-Topalov scandal, and any other notable accusations / disputes.  Done In "An announcement of "check" is done in amateur games, but it should not be done in rated games, what's a "rated game". the reference says "rated", but I changed it to "officially sanctioned". Is that OK? Bubba73 (talk), 17:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC) fine -- Philcha (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Equipment "Pieces of the Staunton chess set design are the recommended standard for competitive play" - we had this at the reviews of Howard Staunton. Refs: Kasparov, G. (2003). My Great Predecessors, Part I. Everyman Chess. p. 17. ISBN 1-85744-330-6. Saidy, A.; Lessing, N. (1974). The World of Chess. Random House. p. 88. ISBN 0-394-48777-X. "Standards of Chess Equipment and tournament venue for FIDE Tournaments". FIDE. Retrieved 2008-06-19. Kasparov just says that they've been used around the world for a century and a half. Bubba73 (talk), 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC) OK, i took someone else's word for it. However FIDE says "recommended". -- Philcha (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Miscellaneous Nothing about correspondence play or play between computers? If not, should "see also" to articles on these, even if you have to create stubs. The alternative would be writing these into this article, which would make it longer, and GA review is (hopefully) imminent. -- Philcha (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Correspondence chess is mentioned in the lead. I don't think this article should go into those rules. Bubba73 (talk), 18:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I agree that this article should not go into those rules. However their existence is mentioned in the lead, which creates the expectation, or requirement per WP:LEAD, that they should appear in the main text. I think it would be better to have a "see also" plus a comment in the lead that the "Competition rules" apply only to OTB play between humans. That also makes me think "Timing" should be moved into "Competition rules", as it only applies to OTB play between humans. -- Philcha (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC) OK, something needs to be done about those variations, I need to think about it. Yes, Timing would be better under Competition rules. Bubba73 (talk), 22:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC) the main Timing section is under Competition. SyG said that it should also be mentioned under "End of the game", so I added a short subsection making a forward reference to the main Timing section. Bubba73 (talk), 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC) You're right, it is - I need new eyes (or worse ...). -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC) History This could do with some refs re: Rules by Philidor, Sarratt & Lewis. Chess clubs' rules, includng those named. Staunton's pland for "Constituent Assembly". The intro to his 1851 tournament book covers this, and IIRC gives examples of some issues: Howard Staunton. The Chess Tournament. Hardinge Simpole. ISBN 1843820897. This can be viewed online at or downloaded as PDF from "Google books: The Chess Tournament, by Howard Staunton". Retrieved 2008-06-19. Ludwig Bledow, infuenced by Karl Schorn, argued that a player should be allowed to have multiple queens (as a result of pawn promotions), and this was incorporated into the rules. He may also have been the originator of the touch-move rule: Spinrad, J.P. "Ludwig Erdmann Bledow" (PDF). chesscafe.com. von der Lasa. Don't have handy, I'm afraid. Acceptance of Staunton's Chess Praxis in English-speaking countries. Acceptance of Johann Berger or Handbuch des Schachspiels in German-speaking countries. "FIDE abandoned the idea of a universal set of laws": I think a GA reviewer will ask for page num in Hooper & Whyld. -- Philcha (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I got all of this material from the references cited. I don't have von der Lasa's book either, but the reference cited states it. As far as the page number in Hooper & Whyld, my feeling is this: the page number is there to enable someone to check out the reference. In the case of an encyclopedia, if it is under the topic as the article's title, I don't see the need for a page number. Futhermore, there are multiple editions of the encyclopedias, so page numbers change, but the entry titles usually do not. Bubba73 (talk), 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC) "there are multiple editions of the encyclopedias, so page numbers change, but the entry titles usually do not" is an excellent point. I share your reservation about page numbers, as UK editions are often slightly different from US. In paleontology articles the page numbers of my copy of Cowen's "History of Life" (UK paperback 3rd ed; latest is 4th; 5th in preparation) are of little use to anyone but me. Can you give the name(s) of the entry(ies)? -- Philcha (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC) In H&W it is under "laws, history of", which is sufficiently different from the article title that it probably merits a page number. Bubba73 (talk), 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Does that entry cover all the items in "Codification" as well? (sorry, I should have used the sub-heading "Codification" earlier) -- Philcha (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Yes, the information in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs came from H&W. Bubba73 (talk), 04:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Conclusion I agreed with SyG, this article is ready for GA review. -- Philcha (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion by SyG
The three reviewers (SyG, Philcha and Sjakkalle) think the article is ready for GA-review. SyG (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Review of Bughouse chess

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Bughouse Chess. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by Voorlandt
Self-nominate one could say, currently B-class. This article is well referenced, has relevant images and I believe is clearly written. I don't think anything major is missing. I also had it reread by an expert bughouse player (2400+ on FICS) and ran it through auto-peerreviewer. Voorlandt 08:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by IanOsgood: conclusion was "Support"
Looks very good to me. The article was in much worse shape a few months ago. I especially like the animated sample game. IanOsgood 23:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by SyG: conclusion was "Support"

Support I ran the article through an automatic peer-review and it found no problem. It looks one of the best chess articles I have seen, certainly better than some other ones nominated for A-class test. I still have the following remarks (a tad mean, I agree): there seem to be a broken link to BabasChess At some point there was an article on Babaschess, however I don't think one red link is problematic (see my view User:Voorlandt) Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC) it would be nice to have a footnote for the origin of the name "Bughouse" It actually says in the second paragraph of the lead Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC) the sentence "Bughouse chess seems to have developed early 1960s independently in different places" seems to be the only "History" section, which is a bit too light. This is a weak point of the article and I am not sure how to improve this. I tried hard to find other sources but failed. The closest I got was an email from the editor of the bughouse newsletter (1992-1994) by Jeremy Graham who could confirm this estimate from memory. I now added a few words acknowledging the fact that little is known (so readers don't feel like information is being held back) Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC) the article says that bughouse is the normal chess rules plus some special rules, but there is no link to "normal chess rules" (maybe in the "See also" section ?). if you click on chess on that line, it actually redirects to the chess rules Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC) the sentence "Dropped pawns may promote, but convert back to pawns when captured" may be expanded, as I do not see how it can work in practice (OK, I have never played bughouse). Do you place a queen on the board or do you let the pawn ? In both cases, how do you remember what it is ? This was quite unclear indeed, I added an extra line explaining it. Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC) is there a way to make a direct link to "clock move", instead of the slightly less direct link to List_of_chess_terms#C ? I don't think so, but maybe someone else knows. Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC) the "Variations" section briefly indicates that bughouse may be played by mail, but it should be mentioned in the main section first. Do you mean the lead? If so, I don't think it is important enough to be mentioned there, since play by mail is not that common. the "over the board" section repeats that "Bughouse seems to have developed early 1960s", which is already told in the main section. Removed it from the lead. Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC) would it be possible to add a few "bughouse champions" who are NOT also "normal chess" champions ? Thanks a lot for encouraging this, I added the most important ones (with ref) Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC) references do not seem to be sorted. I think they are, but maybe missing something (Manson, Penn, Pritchard, Zimmerman). Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Still, a great article that deserves a A-class! SyG 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks a lot for reading it so thoroughly!, your review was really useful and I think it improved the article Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by Addyboy: conclusion was "Support"

I have put this article as GA-class, waiting for a third positive review before passing it as A-class. Anyone? SyG 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 'Support' I'm impressed with this - I'm a huge chess fan but had never heard of bughouse until I saw the article - well referenced, informative, etc. Some sections do need more depth really, but considering it's not hugely well known the lack of information is understandable. Obviously to get to FA it will need more in these areas, but I'd put it as A-class. Oh, and I've just corrected half a dozen grammar/phrasing errors in the openings paragraph, which now reads much better. Addyboy 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Thank you so much for going through it! I rewritten the openings section after a few comments from friends, but obviously without rereading it properly. Which sections do you think need expanding? I think the main material is there, except for the history, for which unfortunately very little information is available. Voorlandt 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion by SyG: A-class was reached
Close the review Finally a third support has arrived, thanks to Addyboy! As no major remarks seem pending and no one has opposed, I shall close this review and assess as A-class. Applause to Voorlandt for having improved this article so much in the past months. Next step is FAC, I guess! SyG 14:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Review of First-move advantage in chess

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/First-move advantage in chess. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by Krakatoa

This article, primarily written by me, is, I think, very well-researched and referenced, covers the topic thoroughly, and as best I can tell, satisfies all the criteria for A-class. Quale wrote on the article's talk page, "I think it's very good, and your sections and section titles are much better than the ones I was thinking about. I'm bumping the rating to B. I would say it's an A-class article, but many WP:CHESS members think that the project A-rating requires a (semi-)formal review." Krakatoa (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Review by Bubba73: conclusion was "Support"

It is certainly a very fine article, well researched and documented. I have only two minor style issues, and they are not that big and could go either way. Capitalization of "black" and "white". Usually these are when they are substitutes for a player's name, otherwise not, e.g. "then Black played..." when referring to a person, but "... the black queen... ". So maybe these should not be caps in the article. But I'm not sure. Percent. The "%" character is used several times, and the style is that "%" is used in scientific work and in tables, info boxes etc, and that "percent" is used otherwise in text. This is no big deal. Bubba73 (talk), 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I've tried to address the % issue now, substituting "percent" where reasonably possible. But I think doing so in a sentence like this would result in a nightmare: "Streeter found that overall White scored +38% =31% -31% (total 53.5%); in 1851-78, White scored +46% =14% -40% (total 53%); in 1881-1914, White scored +37% =32% -31% (total 53%); in 1914-32, White scored +37% =37% -26% (total 55.5%)." Compare "Streeter found that overall White scored +38 percent =31 percent -31 percent (total 53.5 percent); in 1851-78, White scored +46 percent =14 percent -40 percent (total 53 percent); in 1881-1914, White scored +37 percent =32 percent -31 percent (total 53 percent); in 1914-32, White scored +37 percent =37 percent -26 percent (total 55.5 percent)." Unbelievably long, cumbersome, and ugly; the reader will be asleep by the time he/she staggers to the end of that sentence. I think that in effect, a sentence like this one is a "table," so use of the % symbol rather than the word is appropriate. As for capitalization of "white" and "black," I think the article does so appropriately. I don't believe that a phrase like "the black queen" ever occurs in it. Invariably, the article uses the two words to refer to the player(s) conducting the white or black pieces. I think that in that context "White" and "Black" are correct and almost universally used. See, e.g., The Oxford Companion to Chess (1st ed. 1984), p. 297 (article on "SCHLIEMANN DEFENCE") ("By playing 3...f5 Black weakens the diagonal a2-g8, but Jaenisch felt that his move might be practicable because White has not placed his light bishop on this diagonal."); Suba, Dynamic Chess Strategy, p. 134 ("Even the symmetrical variations of some openings present White with a critical moment at an early stage and he cannot progress without making concessions to Black."); Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch, p. 231 (among many other examples on this page and those following, "White maintained a 56%/44% winning percentage for most of the century . . . . But it is also true that some of the world's top players have scored brilliantly with Black."). Krakatoa (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I asked about the use of white and black on the help desk. I got two replies and they agreed with my thinking: Wikipedia:Help_desk#capitalization_of_.22white.22_and_.22black.22_in_chess. Bubba73 (talk), 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Here is what you asked: "This is a style issue - when should "white" and "black" be capitalized when talking about chess? My understanding is that they should only be capitalized when substituting for a proper name, such as "... White played the queen...", and not otherwise, such as "the black pieces". Is that correct?" I don't believe the article ever uses a phrase like "black pieces"/"Black pieces" so your example doesn't seem apropros. The article uses "White" and "Black" to refer to the collective results of persons playing the white pieces and persons playing the black pieces, respectively. As I said above, that as far as I can tell is the approach universally taken by chess writers (I cited the Oxford Companion to Chess, Suba, and Watson, and can add more if you like). What sentences in the article do you consider defective in this respect? To give a hypothetical, do you think that in a sentence like, "Statistics show that White scores 55 percent and Black 45 percent." "White" and "Black" should be lower-case, e.g. "Statistics show that white scores 55 percent and black 45 percent?" As I say, I think few if any chess writers outside of Wikipedia would write the latter. Krakatoa (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I know that there are respected books that use Black and White that way, but there are plenty that don't. My understanding is that it should be like a proper name - caps when substituting for a proper name. In the case of this article, it is talking about an abstract player of the white or black pieces, not a particular player. I'm no expert, and could go either way, but I think not caps unless they are substitutes for proper names of a particular person is in keeping with our style. Bubba73 (talk), 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC) OK, if "White" and "Black" are used as if a proper name would be used, even though there is no specific person, I think that is OK. So it would be "... the black queen... " versus "... Black's queen...", since in the second case, it is taking the place of a proper name. So I'm OK with that. Bubba73 (talk), 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Approve From what Bubba73 has written hereunder, I will consider he approves the article as A-class, unless he states otherwise here. SyG (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Review by SyG: conclusion was "Support"

Approve Given that the comments in my review hereabover have found solutions, I approve that this article should be given A-class, on the basis of this version. Of course there is still room for improvement so I am not sure the article would do it to FA-class. For example the interesting comments made by Voorlandt on the Talk page of the article about the relativity of the advantage depending on the level of players. But as long as there is no source it is difficult to work further on that. SyG (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Comment Hereunder are my comments and proposals for improvements, based on the review of this version of the article. in the Lead The link between the first sentence and the second one may not be clear for an outsider, because in the first sentence we talk about "advantage" and in the second one we talk about "more chances to win", without doing an explicit link between these two notions. After all, an "advantage" could also be "less chances to lose" ?  Done I think I've tied these up, see what you think. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) The expression "scoring between 53 and 56 percent overall" in the second sentence is unclear for an outsider, even if it is explained in later sections. It may be understood that White wins 53% of the games, which is not what is meant.  Done note added to explain this Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) The word "theorists" may not be clear for an outsider. What is a theorist, especially regarding chess ?  Done As mentioned below, in response to SunCreator, I intend to write an article on chess theory (i.e. opening, middlegame, endgame theory) and link to that. The expression "best play by both sides" may be worth a link to something (an article on Game theory ?) because for a non-game expert it may not be clear.  Done Not sure what to link to; doesn't seem to be addressed in game theory. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) There is some discussion of that at Endgame tablebase, but not enough in my opinion. Perhaps that could be a small article, or probably better a term. Bubba73 (talk), 02:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC) I have added a link to the "perfect play" section of Solved game, so I consider this DONE. SyG (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC) In the sentence "the game should conclude in a win for White or a draw", why not adding a link to Draw (chess) ? Done I also created a chess term for "win" and linked to that. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) There is an obvious typo in the sentence "a game of chess should conclude in a draw with best draw". I will correct that.  Done The first sentence implies that White actually has an advantage, which is not proven by anyone. At first I thought that this was a problem and maybe the sentence should be phrased like "the probable advantage", but now I think it is not so bad because the third sentence clearly states that there is consensus on that.  Done I take it this is OK, then. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) The Lead does not reflect the last paragraph of the last section, in which it is hinted that moving first may not be an advantage.  Done in the section "First move statistics" Maybe the first paragraph would look better as a table. I don't know how to do this. Maybe someone else could do this? Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) I've added a table. I'm not sure if how it looks is appropriate. With/without border, what should be listed, to go at the beginning/middle or end of paragraph. All questions I don't have a clear answer to. SunCreator (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC). The use of signs +, = and - is not explained, nor is the way to reach a total percentage.  Done The phrasing "More recently (in 2005)" is a bit redundant and heavy, the first two words would be sufficient.  Done I do not understand the structure of the second paragraph. It looks like just a list of evidences, which is good but could read better with one or two sentences to add fluidity or insight. Done I added an explanatory sentence at the beginning of the paragraph. in the section "Drawn with best play" I find the formulation "The classical view is that White's objective is to extend" a bit heavy because of the repetition of "is". Why not something like "In the classical view, White's objective is to extend" ? But as I am not a native English-speaker, please tell me if I am wrong. Done sentence rewritten Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) In the first sentence I would replace the verb "secure" by "reach", otherwise the reader may think that equality always remains once achieved. Done What assesses Weaver Adams as "prominent" ?  Done Wrote reference explaining this. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) In the second sentence of the second paragraph, I do not understand why the first letter of the quote is in upper case. Is it compliant with WP:MOS ?  Done I think so. Look at these examples given (not addressing this exact point, admittedly) under Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation_marks: Correct: Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The period is part of the quoted text.) Correct: Martha asked, "Are you coming?" Krakatoa (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC) I agree. Bubba73 (talk), 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC) allright then, DONE for me. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) According to WP:ELLIPSES, I think the three dots in the quote of Watson should be in brackets, like [...]  Done I don't see why. The guideline you cite says "An ellipsis does not normally need square brackets around it, since its function is usually obvious—especially if the guidelines above are followed. But square brackets may optionally be used for precision, to make it clear that the ellipsis is not itself quoted; this is usually only necessary if the quoted passage also uses three period in it to indicate a pause or suspension." The quoted passage doesn't use three periods in it, so square brackets are not necessary. Krakatoa (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Right. The brackets are generally only used around an ellipsis if you use an ellipsis in a quote that already has one. Bubba73 (talk), 03:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC) allright then, DONE for me. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) in the section "White to Play and Win" According to WP:HEAD, the names of sections shall not include "special characters", although I am not sure the character " should be considered as special. Done I find it problematic to name the section with the title of a book, while this section talks about other things than the book. Done I have removed the quotation marks, so the title now is not just an allusion to the book. I think the title is a good one to tersely capure the concept -- especially since I reference Berliner saying that he is a disciple of Adams. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) The player Horowitz shall be refered to by his full name (i.e. including surname), in order to be consistent with all the others and to avoid any REDIRECT link.  Done I have slightly changed the link in order to avoid any REDIRECT. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Hans Berliner should be presented as "a former World [...]" and not "the former World [...]".  Done Jeremy Silman should be presented as "International Master" and not "IM", in order to be consistent with all the others. Done I think I've addressed this. The first International Master I cited, I used "International Master," for the next one I used IM and then just an unwikified "IM" thereafter. OK, not a big deal anyway, DONE for me. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Randy Bauer and Taylor Kingston are quoted but their credibility is not explained. Why are they authoritative ? It seems Randy Bauer is not even an IM ? Done I removed the text references to Bauer and Kingston (though they're still mentioned as references). They're respected reviewers, I think, but I don't know what (if anything) their titles are. I don't think either is an IM. As I say, I would dearly love to get hold of the Watson review, in which case I would probably just quote him and forget about Bauer and Kingston altogether. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) There is an undue space before the 26th reference. I will correct that.  Done in the section "Modern perspectives" There are undue spaces in "1. e4" and "1. d4" in the quotation of Kaufman.  Done Originally, I quoted him as he wrote it (same thing with others who wrote "1 e4" and such). For the sake of consistency, I've changed this sort of thing to "1.e4" and "1.d4" with a parenthetical note added to the reference "(notation form changed)." Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) others Are there no players/experts who have argued that Black may have an advantage ?  Done Rowson has a chapter on Black's advantages. I am inclined to add subsections to the article on "The nature of White's advantage(s)" and "The nature of Black's advantage(s)." I think the new sections you added are great to present Black's points. DONE for me. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Shall we speak about players who have better statistics with black than with White (maybe Morozevich ?, although I have not checked his statistics) ? Perhaps, if you know of such players. I've never heard of any GMs who consistently score better with Black than with White. I would think that there would probably have to be some significant number of such players, not just one, to make it worth writing about. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) I happened upon a thread at chessgames.com talking about Morozevich's excellent results with Black. On this page malthrope writes, "Just looking quickly over his stats here on CG.com we get... Database of 969 games with Moro winning 410 times... Wins with White 220 (53.66%) Wins with Black 190 (46.34%)" I haven't checked the math, but if malthrope is right even Morozevich does better with White than Black (I'm assuming that the 969 games are split roughly evenly between the two colors). Krakatoa (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Shall we speak about those openings like the exchange variation of the French defence where it is sometimes felt that Black has a kind of advantage even if the position is symetric, precisely because White has to move first ?  Done I've added sections on "Reversed openings" and "Symmetrical openings" and the problems those pose for White, and specifically discuss the Exchange French. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) There is no section "See also". It is not compulsory to have some, but I find they add some value.  Done All in all I am really impressed by this article. It is factual, precise and well-referenced on a subject that is really not easy. At the end of this review I would like to propose it to GA-class at least. For A-class, let's wait until the end of this review :) SyG (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Review by SunCreator: conclusion was "Support"

Comment (Moved from the articles talk page.): Don't think headings should be in quotes. "Drawn with best play", "White to play and win" and Statistics is a short ambiguous(on it's own) word for a title. Done Done a peer review and this is bits I think apply. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. The lead is to be as concise as possible while still covering the whole article. It seems to do that.  Done Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]  Done If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]  Done This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?] Done As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] Done Reflist 2 has come under criticism as it doesn't show well on various browsers and for some it makes the wording so small it can't be read.  Done SunCreator (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I've added links, and created a few articles and sub-articles to make links to, so I think that is pretty much done. Please link anything else that you think should be linked. I do intend to create a chess theory article, and link to that when I talk about "theorists," but that will take some work. (I want to talk about opening theory, middlegame theory, and endgame theory.) As for the lead, the guideline says it can be "up to four paragraphs" and should summarize the article well. The current lead is one paragraph (while doesn't violate the guideline, since no minimum length is specified), and I think it summarizes the article well. So I think I've addressed all the items in your peer review. Krakatoa (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC) The thing you linked to is entitled "Multiple columns deemed bad." I don't see how that applies to this article -- its reference list only has one column. Note 1 is followed by note 2, then note 3, note 4, and so on until the last note, which is at the bottom. That's one column, right? Krakatoa (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC) For me (using Firefox browser) it shows as two columns that's because it's using {{reflist|2}}} to use only one column it would just be {{reflist}}. SunCreator (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC) I've made the change now. I would not apply this to other article but only here because I think the idea is to push this article to Featured article level. SunCreator (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Neanderthal that I am, I use Internet Explorer, so I couldn't see the problem. I'm gratified to think that you think the article could be a Featured Article. As you know, we have precious few chess article (0.2%) above even B-class. Krakatoa (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Statistics section I think consideration should be given to splitting up this section and include in other parts of the article. It's sure it's fine in context but a section with statistics might not be to welcomed by some reviewers. SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC) To my mind, the statistics section is in a way the most significant part of the article. It's all well and good to debate, in a vacuum, propositions like, "does White win by force from the starting position"?, "does White have an advantage, and if so, how much?", "does Black have the advantage, because White has to commit himself first?", and so on. The statistics section provides data against which such questions must be considered -- i.e. it's hard to claim that White wins by force if Black scores around 45% (including in games by the strongest players). I also think it would be weird to split this information up, apportioning a sentence to this section, a sentence to that section, and so on. All of the information in the "First move statistics" section is closed related and belongs together. Krakatoa (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC) I think the statistics are important and should remain in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC) They are important. Two more suggestions, how about renaming the section so the word 'Statistics' is not included. how about moving the section down to the end of the articles order, so that it like a concluding section. SunCreator (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC) What is one supposed to name it without using the word "statistics"? "Winning percentages"? How is that better? What's the bugaboo about statistics? Krakatoa (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC) I'm not wild about moving the statistics section down to the end. It provides important information necessary to evaluate the relative plausibility of the "Drawn with best play" and "White to play and win" arguments. It's really hiding the ball to put it at the end ("hiding the lede," as some would put it). Does putting it at the beginning violate any Wikipedia principle? Krakatoa (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Okay, is see you;ve renamed it, that seems good. I can't recall where I read about it. It wasn't a guideline, but rather some talk page but I'm unable to locate it to recheck it's context. The nearest I found is Wikipedia:NOT#STATS but that doesn't apply because this article has the statistics nicely explained. SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Minor points From this version. How about caption below the image of Wilhelm Steinitz. At first glance the image looks unrelated to the topic. I don't want to add OR, but if there is something along the lines of "Wilhelm Steinitz considered chess a draw with best play", that would enhance the image.  Done Review tool, still thinks lead is inadequate. Looking at a (good length) suggestion of Wikipedia:Lead here, it seems sensible to expand the lead to be two paragraphs. Reading the FA criteria I get the idea that concise is better, if so then it's great as it is. SunCreator (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Use of capitalisation "White" "white" "Black" "black", especially in winning percentages section is not consistent. Are we happy that it's correct?  Done I think(!?). +38% =31% −31% (total 53.5%) looks unattractive. How about some other way, perhaps "Win 38% Draw 31 % Lose 31%" or putting it in full "White wins 38% draws 31%, and loses 31% giving an overall result of 53.5%". Or even removing some of it given that it's now duplicated to the table.  Done "concluded that White scored 54.1767% plus 0.001164 times White's Elo rating advantage, treating White's rating advantage as +390 if it is better than +390, or -460 if it is worse than -460." ref 10. This doesn't make sense to me at all. It is very interesting that the external reference recommends 35-[elo]-point rating deficit for White to compensate for White's advantage(!). Would seem useful to this article. Is "Hodgson-Arkell" self evident? Rather then say "Hodgson versus Arkell" and why not go to full names Julian Hodgson-Keith Arkell? Why are some moves bold while others "1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.0-0 0-0 5.d3 d6" are not? Ref 70 (Reinhard-Fischer game) is not as you might at first expect(with Fischer's claim), perhaps the comma should go outside the reference, or the sentence reworded to be clear what reference refers to what? Is sentence wording "defended tenaciously" with ref 79 (Portisch-Tal game) OR?  Done (changed wording) Solvable? How about adding something as discussed in Talk:First_move_advantage_in_chess#Can_it_be_solved Article has more then enough content already. SunCreator (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC) In "See also" is it best to use Draw (chess) or Draw?  Done as it's been removed. Further reading is not in alphabetical order as suggest by Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Further_reading  Done Wikipedia linking doesn't seem to like ISBN-10 and ISBN-13, perhaps it should just be ISBN. Applies to some references as well as some future reading books.  Done SunCreator (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Something needs to be done about "+38% =31% −31%" there, and in hundreds of other articles. Bubba73 (talk), 15:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)  Done (as to this article, not the hundreds of others; now we use W38 D31 D31 format, which I (Krakatoa) think is clearer to non-chess players).

Review by Voorlandt: conclusion was "Support"

Support This article is very well written and nicely referenced. I therefore support upgrading this article to class A. Two minor comments. I am not sure I like the statistics table, since it doesn't add very much. Instead perhaps a few other more interesting statistics can be added. I started a threat on the talk page of the article with suggestions. If the table stays, it would be nice to centre it on the page, or even better to have the text left and the table right in that section (like the chessdiagrams below, nicely embedded in the text). Currently the article is in the Category:Chess. As the category page says: "It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories". Perhaps it would be nice to create a master category chess theory, where this article would feel very much at home. Subcategories could include Category:Chess tactics, Category:Chess strategy, Category:Chess traps and Category:Chess openings. This would be very much in line with what we have done to all the chess bio categories, we grouped them in one master category Category:Chess biographies. For FA, the web links in the reference should be changed, that is, they should mention when the webpage was retrieved (or accessed), for the format see Wikipedia:Embedded_citations  Done Voorlandt (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2008

Conclusion by SyG: A-class was reached

All concerns addressed? As best I can tell, all the concerns expressed about the article (by Bubba73, SyG, and SunCreator) have now been addressed, and I think to the satisfaction of the proponents of those concerns? A couple of other random things: (1) I like SunCreator's table (under "Winning Percentages"), but it looks a little funky to me. Is there a way to make the horizontal line for database 1475-2008 go all the way across, and to make all the vertical lines go all the way down? (2) I think the first two words in the article title should be hyphenated: First-move advantage in chess. Anyone else have an opinion on that? Thanks for all your help with the article! Krakatoa (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC) I am not sure I understand your comment on the statistics table, as in my browser there is a horizontal line all the way across, but I am using Firefox. Is it because you may be using Internet Explorer ? I agree the current title may be slightly confusing, as someone may think it is about the first "move advantage" that a player gets in chess. I would like to have the opinion of other editors before we change it, though. As you can see above I have changed my assessment from Comment to Approve for A-class. As Bubba73's comments seemed to imply he agreed as well, we just need the following steps: get the approval of a third reviewer. Both SunCreator (on this page) and Voorlandt (on the Talk page of the article) have done a review and provided some comments, but none has clearly stated they approved the A-class. wait until 3rd May 2008, as the article has been nominated on 12th April and the review needs to last at least three weeks. (frustrating, clearly, but gives enough time to everyone to join in). wait one week after the last comment has been made, in order to ensure noone has a last-minute objection to be made. SyG (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Agree that it's A Class. Will look at table display issue in various browsers. SunCreator (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Above, I also said I support the A class. However they are plenty of comments here that can improve the article (see for instance Bubba's comments, and my comment on the refs). A lot of them minor, so they should be easy to fix. Can something be done about the layout of this review? It is very hard to follow as comments are scattered all over the place in no hierarchical structure. Perhaps all comments that are no longer relevant can be removed, and all other comments grouped? Voorlandt (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC) I approve. The title should probably be "First-move" ... An alternative is "The advantage of the first move in chess", and I don't like that. Bubba73 (talk), 15:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)  Done Hearing no objections, I've moved the article to First-move advantage in chess. Krakatoa (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC) GA Class To me this article seems GA class right now, should it be proposed as GA or should it continue to be improved and go for FA class? SunCreator (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, whatever is decided about A-class, I intend to propose it to the GA nominations. For information, Alexander Alekhine is currently pending there. SyG (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC) I will support it for GA. Is GA considered below A? Bubba73 (talk), 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC) As far as I understand it is a bit different, as A-class is defined by each WikiProject, while both FA-class and GA-class have "transversal" processes about reviews (meaning any subject can be proposed). In some WikiProjects the A-class is considered just a corridor before FA-class, in others it can be a definite state. For example Bughouse Chess will have a very hard time to become FA-class because some of the remaining issues (e.g. history) just need sources that do not appear to exist! SyG (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Close out the nomination? I count four Supports (Bubba73, SyG, SunCreator, and Voorlandt), one more than necessary, and no opposition. It's officially May 3 Wikipedia time, and I believe more than one week since the last comment. Does someone want to close out the nomination? Krakatoa (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, I see noone opposing to this article being uprated, so I shall close the review and declare this article has successfully passed the A-class review. Well done, and thanks to all for your work! SyG (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Review of Howard Staunton

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Howard Staunton. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by Philcha
Howard Staunton - as good as I can make it right now Philcha (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Review by SyG: conclusion was "Oppose to A-class, support nomination for GA-class"

Assess as GA-class I think the article is now good enough to be presented for a GA-review. SyG (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Comment I am really impressed by the quality of this article, the members of the WikiProject Chess seem to improve every day their knowledge of what makes a good article! The article is organised, well referenced and encyclopedic. I think it is close to GA-class, and possibly more with some improvements. Here are my first remarks based on this version of the article. SyG (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) General remarks "Done" items  Done There could be a case for splitting the Biography in two parts, the first one dedicated to the chess aspects and the other one (shorter, I presume) dedicated to the Shakespeare aspects. What do you think ? I considered that and preferred chronologcal sequence because IMO that would gives a clearer impression of how energetic Staunton was. Splitting into chess and Shakespeare aspects would also make it more difficult to find a good place for his book on education. Philcha (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) OK, fine for me. SyG (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) One of the requirements for Featured Articles is brilliant prose. While I am definitely a complete patzer on prose, I still feel the text could generally be improved, for example: OK, I strike that one because it is not important enough to give a damn. the sentence "In 1836, Staunton came to London, and there he took out a subscription for ..." could be transformed in "In 1836, Staunton came to London, where he took out a subscription for ..." In general I have strong a preference for the simplest possible style: I think Wikipedia's target audience should be curious 12-year olds; a simple style is best in documents that are to be read online (see for example Web Style Guide and the rather simple style used in WP:MOS. The fundamental reason is that web users don't want to read, they want to scan. (Jakob Nielsen). Philcha (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks for these links, very useful reading. I will not insist on that for GA-class, but if you ever want to nominate one of your article for FA-class you may run into User:Tony1 (or others) who will work their socks off much more than I do about the style. See for example his comments on the FA-review here for the article Ant. SyG (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) the word "however" is not well placed in the sentence "However after a long and difficult negotiation, which he reported in the Chess Player’s Chronicle, Staunton went...". I suggest the following: "After a long and difficult negotiation, however, Staunton went...". The fact that it was reported in the Chess Player’s Chronicle can be put in a footnote. Re "However", burying it deep in the sentence IMO makes it more difficult to read - humans are not good at stack processing. Yes, probably it is easier to read at the beginning. I was mentioning this point, however ;-), because in the GA-review of Alekhine User:Nikki311 changed them all for copyedit. See her diffs here. SyG (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) The mention of the Chess Player’s Chronicle is a case of my paranoia about important web sources for chess history. Also that page of Winter's is cited several times, mostly for different C.N.'s. If these citations were more specific, it would be necessary to give a separate citation in each case; or to make the one footnote say e.g. "For topic X Winter cites original source A, for topic Y he cites original source B, etc." Is either of these desirable? Philcha (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)  Done The mention of the Chess Player’s Chronicle is very fine for me, I just wanted to remove it because it did not work with where I wanted to put my "however" :-) (which is a very bad reason, arguably). For references to Winter, and more generally for references used extensively in one article, I think the more specific the better because it helps the reader to find the quoted part of text more easily. So yes, I would like that each CN is cited separately, even if it means multiplying the references. SyG (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Done, see next item. Philcha (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I've "promoted" this to its own bullet because I can see how to use the internal links to make the article scroll to somewhere near the right section. The title for each cite will be the C.N. number and its (section) title. Philcha (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Done. Philcha (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ( Done) When possible, the citation of books should contain the page number. Some of the citations were already there and to book I don't have, so I WP:AGF - e.g. Hooper & Whyld's Oxford Companion to Chess. There's also a problem with Fine's The World's Great Chess Games - I have the 1952 UK edition, and Fine revised the book for a later edition. If anyone can help resolve these, I'd appreciate it. If you do not have them, no problem. About the differences in edition, my understanding is that we are supposed to specify in the section "References" the precise edition that is quoted, so that the page number means something. Theoretically, we could even have several versions of the same book in the "References", if several editions are cited in the article. But I have never seen this case happen. SyG (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying that. Philcha (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC) One difficulty of this article is that Staunton was not only a chess champion, but also a Shakespeare scholar. My knowledge of Shakespeare is vastly insufficient to assess whether this aspect is adequately covered or not. If you do not mint, I would link to request the help of someone from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare to see if the article is good enough on this aspect or not. Why didn't I think of that? Doh! Philcha (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Unfortunately the WikiProject Shakespeare seem completely dead (last edit more than one month ago), so we should probably not hope too much help from their side. Hence I strike this comment. SyG (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC) The "References" section could be split between a "Notes" section and a "References" section, for the ease of reading. What types of thing do you think should go in which? I'm also not sure what you mean by "for ease of reading". Philcha (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) A possibility I generally like (but by no mean a compulsory one) is to have a "Footnotes" section with brief mentions like "Watson 1998" (i.e. name of the author and year of the book, and if possible the page), and then a "References" section with all the details on the books cites (title, publisher, ISBN, ...). You can have an example at First-move advantage in chess. One advantage is that you do not repeat all information for each footnote, and you can still give precisions (page number). SyG (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I think it would be best to work out what sort of result is to be achieved first. My first question is, can the footnotes contain internal links to the bibiliographic details (in the same way as inline citations general internal links to the footnotes)? If they cannot, holding the bibiliographic details in a separate place makes life more difficult for the reader, who would have to look for the list of bibliographic details and then scroll through it looking for the author's name and then for the date. Hard-copy books and journals got into the habit of splitting the footnotes and bibliographic details to save paper, but this is not so desirable for information that will usually be viewed on a screen. Now to work out what should happen in each type of case: Book cited several times, all with different page numbers: Split? Book cited several times, without page numbers: I'm not sure about this. (can arise if e.g.: page numbers not known; one is commenting on a book written by the subject of the article, which happens here; one is actually citing a review of the book). Book cited several times, sometimes with and sometimes without page numbers: I'm not sure about this. Book cited once.The problem with splitting here is that we get a messy situation if someone later inserts another citation to the same work. Journal article cited several times, with URL. In this case I think splitting causes difficulties for the reader. Journal article cited several times, without URL. Split? I'm not sure this would set a good precedent, especially for scientific articles, where the same set of authors (A, B, C et al) may write more than one article on similar subjects in the same year (I've seen this fairly often in paleontology). Philcha (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Basically all books would go into the "References" section, and "Footnotes" would only contain mentions of author, year and page. All other works would go direcly in "Footnotes", with as much details as possible. Regarding your list of cases that would give the following: Book cited several times, all with different page numbers: "Footnotes" contain author, year and page numbers. "References" use the "cite book" template with everything possible, but not page numbers. Book cited several times, without page numbers: "Footnotes" contain author and year. "References" use the "cite book" template with everything possible, but not page numbers. Book cited several times, sometimes with and sometimes without page numbers: "Footnotes" contain author and year, and page numbers when available. "References" use the "cite book" template with everything possible, but not page numbers. Book cited once: "Footnotes" contain author, year and page number. "References" use the "cite book" template with everything possible, but not page numbers. In that way, no problem if another inline reference to the same book is added later. Journal article cited several times, with URL: all details in "Footnotes" using the "cite web" template, nothing in "References". Journal article cited several times, without URL: all details in "Footnotes" using the "cite news" template, nothing in "References". Opinion ? SyG (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Books used once or several times should go in the References section with a "citation" or "cite book" template, but use the better Author-date referencing instead of footnotes in the text. Bubba73 (talk), 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I've found the technology to make links from specific notes to bibliographic details - see Template:Ref#Examples. I'd like to do an analysis of the existing refs to see how useful this would be to readers - for example if only a handful of works justify the 2-part treatment (mainly books for which different page numbers are cited), I'm not sure whether using 2 layouts would be helpful. Give me a few days to count the different cases. Philcha (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I'll look at that. In general, the author-date system works very well for books that are referenced only once too. It helps readers and editors. Bubba73 (talk), 01:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I checked refs to books in the current version of the article: Page numbers irrelevant / probably unhelpful (2): Staunton, H. (ed.), The British Miscellany and Chess Player's Chronicle, retrieved 2008-06-19 - once Staunton, H. Great Schools of England. Hardinge Simpole. ISBN 1843820137. Retrieved 2008-06-19. - once Page numbers relevant: Cited more than once, page numbers available (9): Fine, R. (1952). The World's Great Chess Games. Andre Deutsch (now as paperback from Dover). David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld (1992). The Oxford Companion to Chess, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-866164-9. N.B. need more page numbers for this. Kasparov, Garry (2003). My Great Predecessors, Part I. Everyman Chess. p. 17. ISBN 1-85744-330-6. - twice, both to p. 17, should these count as 1 citation? Howard Staunton, The Chess-Player's Handbook, George Bell & Sons, 1893 - N.B. need more page numbers for this. Saidy, Anthony and Lessing, Norman (1974). The World of Chess. Random House. p. 88. ISBN 0-394-48777-X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) and p.86 David Lawson, Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess, David McKay, 1976, pp. 92-93. ISBN 0-679-13044-6 - N.B. need more page numbers for this. Hartston, William (1985). The Kings of Chess. Pavilion Books Limited. p. 26. ISBN 0-06-015358-X. and p.36 Horowitz, I.A. (1973). The World Chess Championship - A History. Macmillan. p. 3. LCCN 72080175. OCLC 604994. N.B. need more page numbers for this. De Firmian, Nick (2008). Modern Chess Openings, 15th Edition. David McKay Co. p. 675. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7. 3 times, all p.3 Cited more than once, page numbers not available (2): Howard Staunton. The Chess Tournament. Hardinge Simpole. ISBN 1843820897. Howard Staunton, The Chess-Player's Handbook, George Bell & Sons, 1893, p. 371. N.B. need more page numbers for this. Cited once (6): Fred Reinfeld, A Treasury of British Chess Masterpieces, Bell Publishing Company, 1950, p. v. John Nunn, Graham Burgess, John Emms, and Joe Gallagher, Nunn's Chess Openings, Everyman Publishers, 1999, p. 8. ISBN 1-85744-221-0. H.J.R. Murray, A History of Chess, Oxford University Press, 1913, p. 885. ISBN 0-19-827403-3. John L. Watson, Mastering the Chess Openings: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Modern Chess Openings, Volume 1, Gambit Publications, 2006, p. 175. ISBN 1904600603. Lev Polugaevsky, Jeroen Piket and Christophe Gueneau, Sicilian Love: Lev Polugaevsky Chess Tournament, Bueno Aires 1994, New in Chess, 1995, p. 64. Schonberg, H.C. (1975). "The Age of Staunton". Grandmasters of Chess. Fontana. pp. 37–46. ISBN 0006336183. I'm still not convinced that a 2-part ref system for books would help readers, as the vast majority of the refs are to web pages and I'd expect these to have 1-part refs even when frequently used (e.g. Murray's BCM articl eon S.) I think a 2-part system also has pitfalls when books have gone through several editions and page numbers vary from one edition to another - e.g. editor A refers to edition X, editor B uses edition Y but attibutes the page number to edition X. From that point of view it may be safer for editors use 1-part refs and specify which edition in each case. I suspect the 2-part ref system originated as a way to save paper in printed content, and that does not apply to Wikipedia. Philcha (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Well, if we do not have an agreement on the best system, I do not want to push for that. Let's keep the current system, and I will strike this issue out for the time being. SyG (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)  Done Several references miss a Retrieve date. As this is a purely bureaucratic and thankless task, I have no problems to add them myself, once I have finished the review of the article. Thanks! I thought I'd got them all. Isn't there a bot that can do this? Philcha (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I have now scrutinised all the references and they all seem to be in order, so this is done. SyG (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)  Done There are several typos here and there. Just to list a few:  Done Anderssen's victory over him in the 1851 London 1851 International tournament effectively...  Done Eary in 1843 Staunton played either a match or a pair of matches... : I guess "Early" was meant. the strongest players he saw in London, Saint-Amant and George Walker, could could easily have given him Rook odds  Done and lists it as as Staunton's best performance  Done von der Lasa later suggested this was why... : first letter should be in capital. As it's the start of a sentence.Philcha (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)  Done The only players on record who were successful against Staunton at evens from 1840 to 1852 were : I guess "events" was meant No, "evens" is the opposite of "odds". Should I refer to the note on chess odds? Philcha (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Oh, my bad. If I was mistaken I fear some other careless readers could be as well. Maybe it could be rewritten into something like "against Staunton without odds", or "against Staunton at evens (i.e. without odds)", or something else that would be fool-proof ? SyG (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I suggest to read thoroughly the text once again to correct all. The trouble is I see what I expect to see - fresh eyes will do better. Thanks for catching the ones above. I have read the article through once again, and I have not seen anymore typos. So let's call it a day. SyG (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Lead "Done" items  Done During the GA-review of Alexander Alekhine the reviewer mentioned that the Lead should contain four paragraphs. I think it can apply here as well. As you said above, the problem with Staunton is his exceptionally wide range of activities and the fact that his chess and Shakespearean writing career extended from the middle of his chess career to the end of his life.. I think combining the paras would be confusing in this case. Philcha (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) See my proposal or a more compact Lead at 3 bullet points below. SyG (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)  Done Spaces are missing between date of birth and date of death. Also, I am not sure we should wikilink the year of birth: as the day is missing, the wikiformatting will not work anyway. This is backed by the following sentence in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking: Links to date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month are not required; for example, ..., and month and year combinations. Hence, while it is currently (April 1810–June 22 1874), I would guess it should be (April 1810 – June 22 1874). Sorry to be that pedestrian :-) In general I agree. There are few occasions when wikilinking e.g. a year (1492 springs to mind) or day (25 December) add something to the article, but these are rare examples. Philcha (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)  Done The Lead contains some information that, in my opinion, are anecdotic for a Lead and better let in the main body of the article. I would for example delete all of the following:  Done ...(the other contender was von der Lasa) Despite the story that Paul Morphy described him as "the author of ... some devilish bad games", I thought that story was so well-known (especially in USA, where there's a strong anti-Staunton prejudice) that should be mentioned up front. Philcha (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)  Done In fact a heart ailment made it very unlikely that Staunton would be capable of serious competitive chess after 1853, and he was extremely busy working under a contract to produce editions of Shakespeare's plays. I understand your point, but removing it would leave a very short paragraph. We've agreed a new lead, which is now in place. Philcha (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)  Done I am not able to perceive clearly the structure of the Lead. The first paragraph talks about his chess books and the chess tournament he organised, the second paragraph is on style, the third paragraph is on the unplayed match with Morphy, the fourth is on Shakespeare, then the fifth starts back at the beginning of the early life, then the last one talks about his character. This just reads like the author tried to sum up all the information from the main body (which is definitely good), but in my humble opinion this needs to be rewritten into a logical flow. I've been looking at this while reading your other comments. The simplest change I can see would be to move the short bio (currently 5th para) to 2nd para. After that the problem is that there were so many threads in his life. Where would be a good place to present different ways of arranging this so that others can comment? Philcha (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) The main elements of the structure were meant to be: Why Staunton is notable. Short bio. Chess style. Why no match with Morphy (a well-known controversy) Non-chess activities. Personality I think these are separate topics and combining paras would be confusing, On the other hand if themes are not clear there's a problem. What do you think would make them clearer? I have tried a very different structure of Lead in my sandbox here. This one is organised as such: Introduction: main reasons why Staunton is notable (the shortest possible) Biography (only about his chess actions) Style of play Writings Please have a look and tell me what you think. SyG (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks for getting me thinking on a fresh track! You've also persuaded me to create a sandbox, which presents a 4-paragraph combination of the existing lead and your draft. The main differences: longer biography paragraph, because I think the extra material shows how energetic Staunton was; comments about Staunton's charm and management skill, to balance the spitefulness of some of his chess writings. What do you think? Philcha (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Yeah, I think yours is very well. SyG (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Done.  Done It is explained that Staunton was one of the two best players, but in the next sentence it is written that Anderssen became chess champion. The difference is clear from the rest of the article, but if someone reads just the Lead it is confusing. It currently says "who was probably one of the world's two strongest players from 1843 to 1851". Would it help if the next sentence said ".. principal organizer of the first international chess tournament in 1851"? Philcha (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC) I've inserted "in 1851", what do you think? Philcha (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Great, there is no more problem with the new Lead. SyG (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)  Done In the sentence "Staunton was a relatively minor Shakespearean scholar but his work is still well-regarded, and he also wrote a book about English public schools which presented some very progressive ideas", there is no connection between the two parts, so I would just split it into two separate sentences. The sentence "There are no reliable sources for his early life" sounds a bit too "wikipedian". Why not something like "Little is known on his early life", or "From his early life it is only known that..." ? "Little is known about his early life" would raise objections from readers who read accounts based on Staunton's later words, unless we used emphasis as in "Little is known about his early life" - which strikes me as rather a lawyer's trick. "From his early life it is only known that ..." has a bigger problem - if "known" is interpreted strictly, it is only known that he was born, probably around 1810! The material cited was provided by one of Winter's contributors, who wrote "None of this throws any real light on Howard Staunton". In this case the simple truth may be the safest policy - there are no reliable sources. Philcha (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, I don't mind not using the exact words of the citation, quite the contrary. My concern is that the expression "reliable sources" may sound natural for Wikipedians but weird for outsiders. Anyway, that is not a major problem, so I will strike that out for the sake of this light review. SyG (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)  Done I do not think the infobox should contain that he was World Champion. I appreciate it is mentionned "unofficial", but I think it should just be deleted because it is not true. We have an outstanding issue about the whole "official" / "unofficial" distinction (see Talk:World Chess Championship. I think "official" / "unofficial" is rubbish, but I'm not sure that's the consensus at present. He was explicitly hailed as world champion after beating St. Amant in Paris. The real problem with all this is where we put the beginning of Steinitz' reign. I'm not sure about this at present. Philcha (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I've just noticed that Murray (part 1) wrote in 1908, "... modern writers, attempting to trace back the line of champions from the time of the first claimant to the title—William Steinitz—regard this match as a contest for the championship, and date Staunton's tenure from this year." This only emphasises how we need to sort out how we label "champions by acclamation", and especially Steinitz. Thanks for making me look! Philcha (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks for drawing my attention on the mess of World Chess Championship. There are clearly some grey areas, like when did Steinitz become champion and what to do with Khalifman. There is a consensus, however, that Steinitz was the first World Champion. I don't know why he is considered the first (and not Anderssen or others before), but he is. So Staunton was possibly the "world best player", the "world greatest player" or something else, but I would avoid to name him World Champion because most sources don't do that. SyG (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I seriously doubt that the evidence supports "There is a consensus, however, that Steinitz was the first World Champion." It may be the consensus of writers from the mid-20th century onwards, but the phrase was used before Steinitz beat Anderssen, and Murray reports a consensus in his time (1908) that the 2nd Staunton vs Saint-Amant match was a contest for the world championship, and describes Steinitz as the "first claimant to the title", i.e. Steinitz was the first to claim to for himself rather than await the acclamation of others. In this case I do not see why writers from the mid-20th century onwards should be treated as greater authorities than Murray or the 19th-century sources. An account of the World Championship which reports only the more recent views is misleading and guilty of WP:Undue Weight. Philcha (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC) We need to sort out the the principles according to which we label players "World Champion", with or without some qualification such as "formal"/"informal". I think that should be done at Talk:World Chess Championship, and as soon as possible. From a practical point of view, in this article we have only 2 sources for the idea of Staunton as World Chess Champion; one of these is not contemporary and does not cite his sources; the other (Mexborough) is not known as a chess expert or highly knowledgeable enthusiast. So in practice we can't label Staunton "World Champion" at present. I'd be grateful if you could help restart the discussion at Talk:World Chess Championship, as it also affects Adolf Anderssen, Paul Morphy and Wilhelm Steinitz. Philcha (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC) OK, I have launched a new thread on Talk:World Chess Championship, trying to focus the discussion as narrow as possible. SyG (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC) The discussion on Talk:World Chess Championship has brought up a lot of interesting comment, and the new version of the Lead is fine for me. SyG (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Staunton's life (introduction) "Done" items  Done As Murray is cited almost word by word in this paragraph, it would be better practice to acknowledge that by putting quotation marks. After re-reading Murray, I remember why I presented it as I did - in the last sentence the phrase "played the part of Lorenzo in the Merchant of Venice to Edmund Kean's Shylock" is archaic and will be hard for readers to understand if they are not theatre fans (I've only seen such phrases in the context of theatre, not movies). Here's the whole passage: Philcha (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) "Howard Staunton was born in 1810, and was reputed to be the natural son of Frederick Howard, fifth Earl of Carlisle. He was neglected in youth, and received little or no education, and although he spent some time in Oxford, he was never a member of the University. When he came of age he received a few thousand pounds under his father's will, a fortune which he soon squandered. We know little of his manner of life at this time, but he was passionately fond of the theatre, and apparently spent some time on the stage. In later life he often used to tell how he had once played the part of Lorenzo in the Merchant of Venice to Edmund Kean's Shylock." OK, fine for me. SyG (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)  Done Winter is cited as being dubious about some facts of Staunton's life, but I cannot find that in the mentionned reference. Would it be possible to be more specific and give the precise number of the "Chess Note" from which this is coming ? (for the moment only the number of the "Chess Note Archive" is given.) C.N. 4776. "Staunton’s origins" Philcha (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I've split the refs to that Chess Notes Archive, and the URLs include the internal links. Philcha (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Well, reading the CN 4776 I am afraid it is not Winter who is dubious about the "facts", but Richard Holmes of London. See the first sentence of the CN: "Richard Holmes (London) writes". Or am I missing something ? SyG (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to "One of Winter's sources ..." Philcha (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Yes that is more sincere now, I think. SyG (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)  Done ref#1 is so extensively cited within the article that I would suggest to split it between two separate references, one for "Howard Staunton: part I" and the other for "Howard Staunton: part II" I've just used my browser's "Print Preview" facility to check the total length - a little under 6 A4 pages, which shorter than many of the other sources cited. (That was me - damned server dropped nmy session) Philcha (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC) ?? I am afraid I may miss your point here. Mine was that Murray is cited about 30 times, so putting two references instead of one would ease the task of the reader, who would immediately know if the quotation is about "Murray part 1" or "Murray part 2". Thinking about it your other suggestion about Winter's chess notes will give more benefit to readers per hour's work, because the "Chess Notes" pages have an internal link (...#linkname) for each group of chess notes. The biggest obstacle to readers in the Murray articles is the lack of paragraph spacing. I think I'll contact the site and ask them to put some in (it should be just 1 line of CSS). I just realised what the problem is about Murray. It's all 1 web page - I formatted it as 2x "cite journal" so that we had the details in case the web page vanished. The web page has no internal links. Each time a user clicks either citation, he / she goes to the top of the same page and has to work his / her way through. Philcha (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, I noticed it is not possible to give two separate web addresses, as it is one single page. Having two different references would still, however, give an indication to the reader about which part of Murray's article is relevant for the paragraph he is reading in the article. In that sense, both references would have exactly the same URL, but one would specify "Murray part 1" and the other "Murray part 2". The reader would still have, though, to work his way through the corresponding part. SyG (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Would you have raised this point if: I had done what most editors do and just cited the web page? I had cited the web page and added plain text in the footnote that mentioned the 2 articles? I think this is another case where the effects of the precedent on editors' behaviour should be considered. I provided citations to the 2 articles in case the web page goes offline. I have not seen other editors do this, and I don't think they would do so if they thought it was going to involve so much extra drudgery. Philcha (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I am a bit lost with your answer. If you are afraid of the amount of work splitting this reference into two would represent, I am ready to do it myself. I do not want to do that, however, until we have an agreement it is a good idea. Hence, regardless of the extra work, could you please tell me if you think my suggestion would improve the experience for the reader ? SyG (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC) As you say, the key point is whether splitting the Murray refs "would improve the experience for the reader". I think the answer is "No, the user still has to scroll and look for the relevant sentences." On the other hand in Winter's Chess Notes there are internal links that take the reader immediately to the right section, and that's why splitting the refs to Winter's Chess Notes was beneficial. Philcha (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC) All right then, let's keep it like that. SyG (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Staunton's life: First steps in chess "Done" items  Done "...could easily have given him Rook odds" : the reader is not supposed to know what "Rook odds" is. And a Wikipedia search for "odds chess" gave no hits! Considering that Staunton gave odds to most players later in his career (eventually even to Cochrane, whom Chessmetric ranks the world's srongest not long before their match), it's quite an important topic. Do you think it would be a good idea to write a stub article about chess odds? I know articles are supposed to be as self-contained as possible. The alternative would be to write a note on odds into this article, but I don't fancy trying to find sources (other than my own vast knowledge, ha!ha! hee!hee!) Philcha (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Footnote added, and also used elsewhere. Philcha (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)  Done "In 1838 he played many games with Captain Evans, inventor of the Evans Gambit. He also lost a match against the German chess writer Aaron Alexandre in 1838" : the repetition of "in 1838" is unfortunate and heavy style. Why not something like "The same year he also lost..." ?  Done What is the reference for the 1838 matches ? Same as for Popert match - I thought it would look odd to quote the same ref twice for consecutive phrases. Philcha (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Right, fine for me. SyG (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)  Done "which he won by a single game" : looking at ref#3 it seems Century British Chess says the match was won by a single game but other sources say differently ? It would be good to add ref#1, which says two interesting things: the match was indeed won by a single game the match was won by the "odd game", probably meaning Staunton had received one game for odds and won the match thanks to that. If confirmed, this seems to be relevant information to be added to the article. No, "by the odd game" normally means "by one game out of many" - e.g. IIRC Fine uses this of Alekhine-Euwe 1935. It would make a long, confusing footnote - confusion was common in sources of the time. How about simply "which he won"? Philcha (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, that would be easiest. SyG (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)  Done In one sentence Murray says "Staunton was both owner and editor of this magazine from 1841-52", but latter he says "in 1854 he sold the Chess-Player's Chronicle". Is the correct year 1852 or 1854 ? Do we have another source to cross-check that ? Not that I know. He may have continued as proprietor after standing down as editor in 1852, then sold up in 1854. So for me to offer an explanation would be particularly fanciful WP:OR. Philcha (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Then that is a problem. The article is currently saying Staunton was editor until 1854, while the only source we have is saying he was editor until 1852. But if we change it to 1852 it is not really better. I would much like to have other sources on that, or otherwise we would have to be less precise in the article, with something like "around mid-1850s". SyG (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)  Done "He then became chess editor of the magazine..." : what is a "chess editor" ? Writes some lead articles, commissions articles from other writers - like e.g. a "sports editor" now. Philcha (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) OK, at first I thought it could be confusing for the reader and I wanted to reword into something like "he was editor on chess aspects for the magazine", but I realise the cure could be worst than the plague. So it's probably best to let the sentence like it is now. SyG (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Staunton's life: Matches against Saint-Amant "Done" items  Done The first paragraph is not about matches against Saint-Amant, this is not consistent with the title of the section. Could re-title, e.g. "1843 - Staunton's competitive peak". What do you think? Philcha (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, that is a possibility. Another one would be to merely move the paragraphe on Cochrane's match into the former section. SyG (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I think that would be misleading, as discussed below. Philcha (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC) I see you have changed the name of the section accordingly. Fine for me. SyG (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)  Done "a strong player and theoretician" : what is a theoretician ? Maybe write "chess theoretician" and put a link to Chess theory.  Done Replace "Chessmetrics treats these games as 1 match..." by "The website Chessmetrics treats these games as one unique match..."  Done The statement that the English opening is named after Staunton's second match against Saint Amant is not supported by a reference. That man Murray again. Philcha (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC) OK, I have added the reference. SyG (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)  Done "almost letting Saint-Amant catch up" : this is not supported by the score, which gives the impression that Staunton always had at least an advantage of 5 points. Is it possible to give the state of the score at the time when the difference was the lowest ? I'll check the sources (match tables) on that. Von der Lasa wrote, "An attack, for instance, of this illness was, I presume, the real cause why, in the middle of the famous match with St. Amant, when in the beginning he had won nearly every game, his strength of a sudden gave way and the opponent got a temporary chance to retrieve his losses." I grandi matches fino al 1849 shows Staunton gaining a 7-game lead, "drawing" the middle portion, and losing the final third by 2 games. That's consistent with von der Lasa. [Mark Weeks gives a similar set of results. I've replaced the phrase "nearly lost (the lead)" with "struggled to keep it" and, in the part about von der Lasa's opinion, written "but faded badly". Philcha (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Right, fine for me. SyG (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)  Done The last paragraph of this chapter is a bit confusing on several aspects:  Done What is this French chess supremacy ? I would suggest to place it at the beginning of the chapter, as background and introductory information to the importance of the matches against Saint-Amant. That would be good if the paragraph was entirely about the Saint-Amant matches. But as I said about, it's more about the peak of Stauntion's playing career, as it includes the Cochrane match(es). If we treat the section as about the Saint-Amant matches, the Cochrane match(es) would have to go in the preceding section "First steps in chess", and I think would be bad: beating Cochrane was not the achievement of a beginner; and it would blur the impression that 1843 was the year in which Staunton hit the top. The article is about Staunton, not about the French chess "dynasty", so I'm reluctant expand this point. I'd wiki-link "French chess supremacy" to World Chess Championship, except that we have some unresolved issues there. Philcha (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Found and added a ref for "French chess supremacy" [3]. Philcha (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Great, that is more robust. SyG (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)  Done Who said "London became the chess capital of the world" ? What is a "chess capital" ? Removed it. Philcha (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)  Done I do not understand the last sentence, even with the reference. Who is "he" in the sentence "as he might truly call him" ? Probably it makes sense to give a bit of context. I understand it was only one person (Earl of Mexborough) who used the terms World Chess Champion for Staunton, do I ? Winter was looking for uses of "world chess champion" or similar, and Mexborough's speech gave a Google-like match. Murray (part 1)] also wrote, "As a matter of fact, he was at the time regarded very much in this light" - I could add this ref too. Philcha (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Simplified the wording, added the Murray ref. Philcha (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Great, it's much clearer now. SyG (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)  Done Would it make sense to reword "French chess supremacy" into "French supremacy on chess" ? SyG (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Done Philcha (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)  Done I have seen you added the explanation that Staunton was hailed as the world champion, which gives me the following thoughts: SyG (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I am not sure the Earl of Mexborough can be considered an authoritative source on that one, especially during a laudable speech. As the two references are English, does it mean Staunton was received as World Champion only in England ? What were the general reaction in France (besides Saint-Amant) and in Germany ? Murray is too vague to help answer your question: "As a matter of fact, he was at the time regarded very much in this light ; while modern writers, attempting to trace back the line of champions from the time of the first claimant to the title—William Steinitz—regard this match as a contest for the championship, and date Staunton's tenure from this year." Winter's Early Uses of ‘World Chess Champion’ quotes a few other items besides Mexborough's speech (at which Staunton was present!), but all from Chess Player’s Chronicle, which Staunton controlled at the time. The only other document-quoting chess historian I've found who covers this period is Spinrad. His Early World Rankings quotes Bledow (1846):"Next year we will hopefully see each other in Trier, and until then the winner of the battle in Paris should not be overly proud of his special position, since it is in Trier that the crown will first be awarded." (Bledow proposed that he and von der Lasa shoudl organise an intermational tournament in Trier in 1847, and that the winner should be regarded as world champion) Bledow's words are a little ambiguous, although I would interpret "it is in Trier that the crown will first be awarded" as dismissing claims that Staunton was world champion. Because that's an interpretation, I'm reluctant to use it. Spinrad then writes, "From 1843 to 1851, there are a number of remarks by British players which refer to Staunton as champion. However, even in England, we can find dissenting views ..." then mentions Buckle's supporters and the comment by Staunton's enemy George Walker that von der Lasa was the best in Europe - and then another quote (unsourced) supporting Staunton. Considering the paucity of sources and the political divisions in chess at the time, I suggest we should mention that Staunton was hailed as the world champion but be discreet and brief about it. In fact I'd like to tone the sentence down, to "Staunton was hailed by some as the world champion." If anyone complains about WP:WEASEL, I'll copy and paste this response into the discussion! Philcha (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC) You have found great sources! Unfortunately they have just convinced me Staunton was not hailed as World Champion! Here is a draft suggestion of a full paragraph to describe the ambiguity: After this victory Staunton was often hailed in England as the World Champion.(citations) There is no indication, however, this recognition was also the case in other countries. Even in England, some prominent chess champions disagreed with this view.(citations) What do you think ? SyG (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Nice suggestion, in fact I think it's possible to squeeze a little more out of the sources. Have a look and tell me what you think. Philcha (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC) The new paragraph is great! SyG (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)  Done The article says there is a doubt whether one or two matches were played, but the ref#3 given only talks about one match ? These are Spinrad's research notes, rather terse, I had to read it again twice! Staunton-Cochrane: what happened? have various accounts eg 14-4 WCC, +12 =7 -12 P+1 TS, +3 -3 P+1 and -3 =2 +1 even Looks like Winter's World Chess Champions treats it as 1 and Bachmann's Teplitz-Schonau tournament book (!) treats it as 3! Might be best to write "Early in 1843 Staunton played one or more matches (sources differ on this[3]) against John Cochrane ..." We can't ignore these games (I wish!) as Murray gives them as his top reason for regarding Staunton as the bet UK player, and Chessmetric rates it Staunton's best performance. What do you think? Philcha (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC) If we say in the article that sources differ, we have to provide examples of differences. So yes, I think a footnote giving Spinrad's, Winter's and especially Bachmann's treatment would do it. SyG (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I would love to do as you suggest, but: Spinrad's notes are very cryptic; I don't have either of the books he apparently cites, and nor does Spinrad(!); I wonder why Bachmann's Teplitz-Schonau tournament book (1922!) should say anything about the Staunton-Cochrane games in 1843. I've searched the web for other sources and got nothing useful. Murray gives the date as 1841-1842! I'm now inclined to avoid this messy issue by re-writing the sentence as "Early in 1843 Staunton played a long series of games against John Cochrane ... Chessmetrics treats these games as 1 match and ..." What do you think? BTW while searching I found [4]: Cochrane sent The City of London Chess Magazine a game in which an Indian player beat him. Looks like the chess in Madras was as hot as the curries. No wonder Cochrane crushed everyone except Staunton when he came back in 1841 after 15 years in India. Philcha (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC) I like your proposal of rewording to avoid the messy issue. SyG (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Done Philcha (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)  Done The reference in the first sentence should be placed after the parenthesis. I don't think so. The contents of the parenthesis are a nested sentence, and the ref belongs at the end of that. I don't know what the the Chicago style guide says about this particular case, but WP:MOS says the Chicago style guide's recommendations are not mandatory. I may be wrong on that one. Let's call it a day. SyG (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)  Done "this is the first known case where seconds were used in a match" : as any "first thing" statement, it should be supported by a reference. Same ref ([5]), at end of para as it aplies to last few sentences of para. I am afraid I fail to see in this reference a sentence supporting the statement that this is the first known case where seconds were used in a match. Could you please explain a bit further ? SyG (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Yet another senior moment! I've added the ref. Thanks! Philcha (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC) The new reference is great! SyG (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC) "He also took Worrall and Harry Wilson to Paris as his assistants" : I think it would be worth to give a bit of background, like "Worrall and Harry Wilson, two strong chess players at the time, ...". Also, please give Worrall's surname. You mean Worrall's first name? The source ([6]) doesn't give it. Philcha (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC) In all probability it should be Thomas Herbert Worrall. The fact they were both strong chess players is relevant because it may have given an advantage to Staunton, as Saint-Amant had no second. SyG (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I could find nothing for either of them. Do you have usable sources? Philcha (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I am afraid I do not have that many sources. Here are the few I could find on the net for Worrall: some games against Morphy and Blackburne: [7] he was easily beaten by Morphy in a match in Paris in 1858: [8] he was rumored to be a strong Mexican amateur player in [9] I now have a big doubt as the article talks about "Worrall", but the actual source (Bill Wall) says "Worrell". Would it be possible to clarify ? SyG (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC) batgirl says "Worrall", Wall says "Worrell". I googled for "Worrell chess" and got only Wall's pages, clones of Wall, and the Worrell Attack (6 Qe2 in stead of 6 Re1) in the Closed Morphy. I can't see how to resolve this. -- Philcha (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Staunton's life: Chess writer and promoter "Done" items  Done I am not sure we need to specify "according to The Oxford Companion to Chess", as it is clear from the reference.  Done The expression "over-the-board play" may not be clear for the casual reader, it should be developed, footnoted or wikilinked. Searching Wikipedia for "over the board chess" got no hits, so wikilinking won't help. An explanation would double the length of and dominate the para. I've inserted a footnote. Philcha (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)  Done The ref#14 should be placed at the end of the sentence. It is now :-)  Done "Although most of his articles focused on over-the-board play, a significant number featured correspondence chess and others followed with enthusiasm the progress of promising young players, including Paul Morphy" : the word "although" implies a contradiction, but there is none between the proposal "most of his articles focused on over-the-board play" and the proposal "others followed with enthusiasm the progress of promising young players". Maybe the sentence should be split in two, like "Although most of his articles focused on over-the-board play, a significant number featured correspondence chess. Some articles followed with enthusiasm the progress of promising young players, including Paul Morphy" Split. Philcha (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)  Done I am not able to find in ref#2 a sentence where Winter says Staunton "followed with enthusiasm the progress of promising young players" in his column for the Illustrated London News. C.N. 4765. "Unnamed prodigy" Philcha (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Now links directly to that section of Winter's page. Philcha (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Strange I did not find it the first time. Thanks for the reference! SyG (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)  Done "(published 1843)" should be replaced by "(published in 1843)"  Done In the sentence "Another book, The Chess-Player's Companion followed in 1849", I feel there is a comma missing somewhere. Hell, your English is sometimes better than my English. :-)  Done About the match against Harrwitz, it should be explained (at least in a footnote) what "odds of Pawn and 2 moves" means. I've added a general footnote about odds (unsourced!!), and referred to that for "rook odds" Philcha (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)as well.  Done the sentence "which did not go out of print until 1993" is confusing. Does that mean the book was a complete failure, so that it took until 1993 to sell all copies ? Or does it mean it was a huge success, so that it was only in 1993 that they stopped reprinting it ? The latter. It's an English idiom that you apparently have not seen before. Don't worry, your English is 1M times better than my French. :-) I am happy with the new wording. SyG (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC) "who had had 8 children" : replace "8" by "eight" Numerals are easier to read, see above. Philcha (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I strike this out because the same issue is discussed in another bullet point. SyG (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC) The date "July 23 1849" should be wikilinked. There was a vigorous debate about this (? Village Pump) a month or 2 ago. The problem is that Wikipedia / Wikimedia lacks a separate date formatting facility. I don't know anything that would make that date interesting for reasons other than Staunton's marriage. Philcha (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Yes I agree this formatting issue is just useless bureaucracy. Let's strike it out for the moment. SyG (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)  Done I do not understand the purpose of ref#15. Proves he did write such a book. I'm sure google used to give the most recent print date (I didn't just make it up), looks like they've changed that page. :-( There seem to be more recent editions than 1993, for example this one. Why not changing the sentence to something like "which is still in print nowadays" ? SyG (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC) If you do not mind, I have replaced the sentence "which was still in print in 1993" by "which is still in print nowadays", as it did not stop in 1994. SyG (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)  Done It is better to put numbers below 100 in full letters, so I would propose the new writing : "seven games in which Staunton gave Harrwitz odds of one pawn and two moves (4 wins, no draws, 3 losses), seven games in which he gave odds of one pawn and one move (1 win, no draws, 6 losses), and seven games without any special odd (7 wins, no draws, no losses)" I honestly disagree about this, as "web users want to scan, not read". Numerals make their meaning plainer faster - especially if the user's first language is not English. And specially when the win / lose / draw summaries are numeric. Philcha (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) While your explanation is a good one, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words sounds rather clear about this issue, and I do not see a compelling reason to do an exception here. However, I realise I was wrong above about "numbers below 100" as it seems only numbers below 10 are concerned. SyG (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I read the whole article once again and there does not seem to be any of these left, so this is done for me. SyG (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Some style guides say to spell out numbers less than 100 and all that can be written in one or two words. Others say less than 10. There was quite a bit of discussion about this on WP a few months ago, and I don't know what was decided. I used to be a stickler for 100, but I've given up on that. But all style guides say at least less than 10, so I go by that. Remember, WP is an encyclopedia, not a blog, not a text message, not email, and not a telegram. Bubba73 (talk), 23:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC) And it matters what kind of number it is. It must be an exact whole/counting number to be spelled out, and not a measurement, so "3 miles" is OK. And dates are not done that way, even "5 weeks" or "9 years old". But ordinals are spelled out, thus "first" instead of "1st", etc. 23:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)  Done The precision "and is available online" is not that encyclopedic, so better let it in the footnotes. The point is that someone still finds it commercially viable to make it available - rather like his other book not going out of print until 1993. Philcha (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC) As far as I know Google wants to put all books online as a free service, not for a commercial reason. The mention would make sense if Google chose to put online the most famous books, or something like that. Otherwise for the moment I fail to see the value of this mention on the article (even if it definitely deserves a footnote). SyG (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) You're right, I've removed it. -- Philcha (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC) with the games at "Pawn + 1 move" odds, the article states "Staunton lost 6 and won 1", but ref#3 states "Staunton-Harrwitz: 7-0 even, 0-6-1 P+1, 4-3 P+2 (many sources)" which in my understanding means Staunton won none, drew one and lost 6. On the other hand, ref#1 states that Staunton "won 1 to 6 of those at Pawn and move", in line with the article. Which reference is correct ? Or am I misunderstanding somewhere ? Almost certainly confusion in the sources again. Keeping accurate records did not matter until round-robin tournaments started (AFAIK London 1862). Philcha (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, probably a problem in the sources. So which one is correct ? If we do not know maybe we should delete the claim from the article ? SyG (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Aaaargh! The problem is that: IIRC both commentators and Chessmetrics regard this as one of S's strongest performances (note the whitewash at evens); if the article says "Staunton lost almost as heavily at Pawn and move" reviewers and readers will be dissatisfied; I see no reason for preferring either source, as Murray's figures add up but Spinrad names sources and is open when when they conflict (e.g. "what happened here?" about Staunton vs Cochrane); explaining the problem would double the length of the paragraph, IMO without helping the reader. I can see no no good solutions. I suggest the least bad solution is to leave it as-is, since most readers will not check Spinrad's cryptic notes but some will read Murray's articles. OTOH I'd keep the ref to Spinrad's notes so we know there's a problem - hopefully someday some kind author will resolve it. -- Philcha (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Staunton's life: London International Tournament "Done" items  Done ref#21 should be placed after the parenthesis. Help! I've added the footnotes you suggested above, so the numbers have changed. Can you remember which one you meant? Philcha (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Found it - by using the old version that you cleverly linked to at the top. The ref applies to "about £359,000 in 2006 money", which I think is a sentence within a sentence so the ref should go at the end of the contained sentence. I have raised the issue of footnotes before/after the parenthesis at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Footnotes and parenthesis but my question did not get a lot of answers. One remark was, however, that if the parenthesis is a full sentence then there should be a point in the parenthesis. In our case, instead of "fund of £500 (about £359,000 in 2006 money[21]). The" that would give "fund of £500 (about £359,000 in 2006 money.[21]) The". Is that better ? SyG (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC) If there was a full-stop in the parentheses, then the phrase should start with a capital letter - but that would completely break the flow). The whole silly issue is based on the Chicago MOS, which WP:MOS says is not compulsory. IMO the Chicago MOS is just plain irrational about the placement of refs, since it's more logical for a ref to go with the phrase / clause it supports rather than being separated from it by a punctuation mark. Many scientific articles also prefer to place the refs before the punctuation, see for example Origins and Early Evolution of Predation (this was the first I looked at that I knew to be freely available, without a login or subscription; I know of many other examples, but a lot will not be easy for you to access). Philcha (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC) OK, no big deal. SyG (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)  Done despite my proposal to shorten this section, it would be good to explain briefly the format of the tournament, otherwise we may lose the reader when we talk about "2nd round" and "play-offs". " knocked out is wikilinked. I'm concerned that saying much more could lead to yet another footnote on chess tournament formats - and I really don't want to try to explain Swiss tournaments. Philcha (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Right, I have wikilinked "playoff" as well. That is fine for me now. SyG (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)  Done the sentence "To make up the numbers the committee "promoted" the strongest of the Provincial Tournament's entrants to play in the International Tournament" may not be clear for a casual reader. What does "make up the numbers" mean ? Was it to have an even number of players ? A knock-out contest requires a power of 2, otherwise it needs a complicated and often controversial system of seeding and byes. I could add another explanatory footnote, but it might be quite long. What do you think? Philcha (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Why not something like "To have an even number of participants the committee "promoted" the..." ? SyG (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I can see you're not a tennis fan, otherwise you would be more familiar with the workings of knock-out tournaments. "even number of participants" is inaccurate - to avoid having to give some players byes (free passes into the next round) you need a power of 2 - e.g. 4, 8. 16, 32, etc. How about: To obtain the right number of players for a knock-out tournament the committee "promoted" ... If we go for this and for the short version of the tournament in my sandbox we need to make sure to paste in "To obtain the right number of players ..." Philcha (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, that sounds good. This way the unaware reader like me can go into knock-out tournament if he wants more explanation. SyG (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Did you check out the shortened version at [10]? Or did you think that was too short? I notice you've cut the section slightly in the actual article. Philcha (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC) For the moment I did not take the time to check your version, I will as soon as I can. Also, I did not cut the section slightly, probably another editor. I have just taken your suggestion to replace by "to obtain the right number...", so for me this issue is DONE. SyG (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC) As this event has its own article, maybe there would be a case to reduce the length of this section ? Hmmm. The easiest reduction would be in the list of missing players. I'd still want to mention the absence of Cochrane, Saint-Amant and von der Lasa because of their playing strength, but "and at least X other well-known masters" might cover the rest. Staunton's offer to pay Anderssen's expenses has to stay, both for the irony and to show Staunton's determination. I'm tempted to move the part about "world championship" to the end of the 1st para, where it fits well with Bledow's proposal. Apart from the absentee list I can't see right now any cuts that would not omit or weaken important points such as: Staunton's motivation and ambitions for the event (he may also have assumed that he would win, but I'd want very WP:RS before including that). His alertness to opportunities (the Exhibition eased the travel problems). Its contribution to the developing concept of a world championship. Inter-continental support - which was a huge achievement when travel, communications and financial services were so primitive (how did the cash get from India to Britain?) Management skills (although I remember reading somewhere that Cochrane said he found it easier to work with Staunton from the other side of the world). His taking on too much as both organizer and player (apparently a habit, see the part about the non-match with Morphy). The bit about the London Club tournament reinforces the point that Staunton was a divisive character (I imagine he'd love the modern saying "Lead, follow or get out of the way"), as well as presenting an opportunity for irony ("Anderssen won"). Philcha (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I've replaced the list of missing players with "von der Lasa ... Saint-Amant ... Cochrane ...;at least 4 other well-known masters were unable to play". Philcha (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC) I've produced a shorter version at User:Philcha/Sandbox#.22London_International_Tournament.2C_1851.22_for_Howard_Staunton. I think any further cuts would weaken or destroy points that I think should be made (listed above). What do you think? If we use the shorter version, we should first paste the longer one into London 1851 chess tournament but enclosed in HTML comments so that it is invisible in normal view; then we can integrate the extra material later. Philcha (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I finally found time to have a look at your version, and it is a good effort of reduction indeed, but my thought was towards something more drastic. I have built another try at User:SyG/Sandbox, on the concept that everything that was not linked to Staunton could be deleted. In that sense I removed: the participants from the lower tournament upgraded in the upper one the mention that this tournament was cited by some as designing the World Champion the donations from all over the globe (could fit into the section on Staunton's management skills) I also did a bit of copyedit to reduce the length of some sentences. See what you think! SyG (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Hi, SyG, I glad to see you're still interested! Thanks for all the work you're putting into this. The problem is that I think the items your proposal removes are important: promoting the participants from the lower tournament could be evidence of clever planning. It would be WP:OR to say so, but I think readers should have the chance to make up their own minds. the second tournament organised by the London Chess Club afterwards illustrates the political divsions in chess at the time, and I think readers will like the irony that Anderssen won again. that this tournament was cited by some (1 in USA) as designating a World Champion shows how important an event it was. the donations from all over the globe were a huge achievement considering how primitive communications and financial services were, and is the strongest sign of the enthusiasm for the project. I've tried to keep these points but squeeze down the number of words a bit more - see my 2nd version at User:Philcha/Sandbox#.22London_International_Tournament.2C_1851.22_for_Howard_Staunton_-_version_2. I kept the names of Kennedy & the Liberty Weekly Tribune because reviewers like names and don't like "some commentators". I see you've made other comments recently as well, and I;ll check them out. -- Philcha (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC) All right, I do not want to be pushy on that one as deleting content is always a bit risky. So I will strike this out for the moment. Please choose whether you prefer the current version, your first new version for change or your second new version, and let's go with that one. Obviously, if in a latter review someone complains about the size of this section, I will stand with him ;-) SyG (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Staunton's life: Later life "Done" items  Done "In the new book he devoted 168 pages..." : I do not find this precise number of 168 pages in the reference given (Murray), that only says "many games". I know I read it. Probably I found a ref then preferred the Murray ref. Google gave lots of hits - reproductions of [11], which is already used, so I'll use that. Philcha (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Playing strength and style "Done" items  Done On general grounds, I think the flow of the second paragraph could be improved. For the moment this sounds like a list of sentences, but there does not seem to be a link. Another effect of the infrequency of top-class competition - only isolated scraps of evidence are available. Philcha (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Do you think it would help to remove "Before 1840 Staunton was still a relative beginner, and after 1851 his health was not good enough for serious competition"? Then: the 1st sentence is about Chessmetrics' assessment; the next 2 sentences are about the fact that Stainton gave odds to almost everyone and few players could compete with him at evens; the last is about the other possible "number one" in the late 1840s. Philcha (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC) I like the changes you did. Now the second paragraph is about his position in the hierarchy, and the third one is about the players he could beat. Fine for me. SyG (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)  Done "a 3 game start" : this sentence seems grammatically weird, it seems a hyphen or a "s" is missing somewhere, but I may be wrong. It's normal English in the UK. It might be interesting to see what North Americans think. Perhaps "a 3-game start" would be clearer. Philcha (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Now says "3-game start" Fine for me. SyG (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)  Done What are the "closed" and "heroic" schools the article is talking about ? There is no mention of a school in the reference given (ref#22 on Ludwig Erdmann Bledow). What is the source for this categorisation ? ref#22 on Ludwig Erdmann Bledow. If you use the PDF search facility you'll find that it's the only instance of "closed" in the doc. Philcha (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the hint! This reference is a bit weak but good enough for me. SyG (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)  Done "he was noted for the accuracy and incisiveness of his combinations" : is there a source for that ? (besides Morphy saying he was a great player but not a genius) Cited work and URL: "In a given position, where there is something to be done, no matter how recondite or difficult the idea, Mr. Staunton will detect it, and carry out the combination in as finished a style as any great player that ever lived, but he will have no agency in bringing about the position." Philcha (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Yes indeed, fine for me. SyG (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)  Done The section lacks a paragraph on Staunton's assessment from other great players. The first paragraph on Morphy is good, but there should be another paragraph on other players. For example, it seems Horowitz’s The World Chess Championship A History considers Staunton as a mere patzer. What do Kasparov, Fine, Réti and others think of Staunton's strength ? I would not consider 20th-century American writers reliable on this. See Mark Weeks' http://mark_weeks.tripod.com/chw01d15/2000-23.txt Fine and the extract from Horowitz I've seen on the Web show a grudge against Staunton for not playing Morphy. For example Fine: chose for his "Staunton" section a game that IMO is worse than the ones I included in "Notable games"; has a whole section about the 1851 tournament but does not mention Staunton's role in making it happen. I don't have Kasparov's My Great Predecessors, and don't even know if Kasparov wrote about Staunton. Can anyone help? Did Réti write about Staunton? BTW I didn't include Fischer's statement about Staunton being "one of the 10 best masters" because Fischer never grew out of being a provocative teenager, so it's hard to tell when he was serious and when he was playing games with journalists and readers. Philcha (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I see Krakatoa has added a lot of material on the assessment, including comments from Kasparov and Fischer. Without judging if the structure is adequate now, at least the material is there, so this point is DONE. SyG (talk)  Done About Chessmetrics, if you look at this page it seems that Staunton gradually came back from #11 in June 1851 to #2 in April 1855. Not only is this interesting per se, but it also questions the fact that Staunton's health was then too weak to let him have a serious contest in 1853 (von der Lasa's opinion). Statistical rating systems struggle before 1862, when tournaments started to become common. The infrequency of top-class contests before then makes ratings erratic. I'm happy to use them for general comments (e.g. "from X to Y his record was among the 5 best .."). I'd only start using them for more precise indications dform 1870 onwards. On the other hand, von der Lasa could see what condition Staunton was in after 12 games against a relatively out-of-practice top-class player. Philcha (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, the reliability could be a problem, especially as we already had a hard time proving the reliability of ChessMetrics in the FA-review of First-move advantage in chess. So probably your circumspect usage is a good choice. SyG (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Chessmetrics is very WP:RS - see Moul and Nye's "Did the Soviets collude?". -- Philcha (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)  Done "The only players on record who were successful against Staunton at evens from 1840 to 1852 were" : here we list Anderssen, Saint-Amant and Williams, but what about Buckle ? Also, what source says these were the only ones ? If there is no source it sounds like original research. The one referenced at the end of "... but lost the match because he had given Williams a 3 game start." I didn't want to ref the same source twice in 2 consecutive sentences.Philcha (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) So I understand it is in Spinrad's notes ? I have a hard time to find it, could you please indicate to me the exact sentence from Spinrad, so that I can look directly for it ? SyG (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Spinrad's notes search for "Staunton" to see the odds (or none) and results. Philcha (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Please correct me if I misunderstand, but it seems Spinrad does not say directly that "the only players on record who were successful..." but you deduced it from his records of the match. This could be seen as original research, as Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material which advances a position. Another concern is that Spinrad could have forgotten a match, in which case the conclusion is wrong. I would suggest an introduction like "Based on Spinrad's match records, the only players on record who were successful..." SyG (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC) You're right again! It now says, "According to match records collected by Jermey P. Spinrad, the only players who were successful against Staunton at evens ..." -- Philcha (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Personality "Done" items  Done Was Staunton's enmity with Walker caused by the behaviour of the London Chess Club for the 1851 tournament, or did it exist earlier ? Do we have some clues about what caused this enmity ? No source that I've seen explains the enmity or gives a start date. I've found 1 sample of venomous writing by Staunton in 1841, but for all I know the enmity could have started in 1840, while Staunton was writing for the New Court Gazette - or perhaps earlier. Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I've just found The Late Grand Chess Match, which: says the Staunton-Walker relationship fluctuated wildly; reproduces an article written by Walker and published 1844 in Staunton's Chess Player's Chronicle. The intro to this page says, "Although he was one of Staunton's earliest promoters, their relationship see-sawed between friendship and animosity, primarily due to Staunton's acerbic pen." The very objective tone of Walker's writing is notable. But in 1844 Staunton threatened to sue Walker over the use of some of Staunton's games in Walker’s 1844 book Chess Studies! (Copyright on Chess Games) Philcha (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Chess Disputes by Spinrad gives more samples of extravagant invective from Staunton against a wide range of targets on a wide range of subjects. I should revise Howard Staunton to say a little more about his dark side, although I'd want more direct evidence about Walker's being one of Staunton's earliest promoters - I have now done this, and look forward to your commments. Philcha (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC) I think Howard Staunton should say no more than I have just proposed, as we seem now to have enough material for stand-alone articles on: Staunton's acerbic pen; chess disputes, including those between Staunton and Walker; chess copyright. Philcha (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC) See note below on the belligerent tendencies of mid-19th chess writers. Philcha (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC) That is a great expanding! Fine for me, the new version gives much more information to the wanabee chess specialist. SyG (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Influence on chess "Done" items  Done "which proved that such events were possible, and produced a clear consensus" : I would delete the comma as it is the tournament that produced the clear consensus, not Staunton. Without the comma, I think "which proved that such events were possible and produced a clear consensus on who was the world's strongest chess player" might be interpreted as "... and such events produced a clear consensus ..." It might be best to ask a few other people about this point, as English is not your first language while I naturally interpret the words according to their intended meaning, which is not necessarily their most obvious meaning. Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) OK, I trust you. SyG (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Talking about the Sicilian defense:  Done not only the Sicilian defense is the most successful reply to 1.e4, but it could also be the most frequent. If we had a source on that, it would add to Staunton's influence. I'm not sure that logically it would add to Staunton's influence. Sicilian Defence says, "The opening fell out of favor in the latter part of the nineteenth century. This was due in part to the death of its two greatest exponents, Staunton and Anderssen, in 1874 and 1879 respectively ..." So to make a connection we'd need sources saying that the revival of the Sicilian in the early 20th century was largely due to later study of Staunton's games or writings. Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) So I understand the Sicilian was popular in Staunton's time thanks to his use of it, and then fell out of flavour once he died, until a revival much later. That in itself is interesting. SyG (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I have just realised the section was rewritten, with that influence acknowledged. Fine for me. SyG (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I've rewritten it again to emphasise how complex the question of S's influehnce is and to include some very relevant quotes. -- Philcha (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC) did Staunton give reasons why he recommended the Sicilian defense, and if yes are they still valid ? Staunton wrote, "... this is the best possible reply to 1. P-K4, 'as it renders the formation of a centre impracticable for White and prevents every attack." (The Chess-Player's Handbook. George Bell & Sons, p.371.) Is that still valid? I don't know as I'm hopelessly out of date on theory. Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Mmm, the reality is just the opposite: there is an incredibly various lot of attacks against the Sicilian (much more than against, say, the Caro-Kann). Maybe that means the Sicilian helped to avoid the type of attacks that was popular in those times (attack with pieces), while latter other types of attack were discovered. But here I am going into original research. SyG (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I found and included a killer quote from Nunn. Thanks for "encouraging" me to look for it! -- Philcha (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC) I would suggest to place the third paragraph before the second, as the third is more general and a good conclusion for the section. On the other hand the 1st 2 paras are about his writings (1st on theory, 2nd on English chess) and the 3rd about the effects of the 1851 tournament. Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I understand better now. Looking at the new version of this section, I would like to suggest to place the paragraphs about openings (Sicilian, English, Staunton's gambit) in the first place, so that the article goes from the specific to the general. The current first paragraph (about his writings) would then become the last one, in order to end with his obituary. SyG (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I never wanted to include so much detail about S's openings as my impression was that they had little direction influence on 20th century play. The additional material IMO confirms that impression, e.g. de Firmian in MCO says the English "is really a twentieth century invention". Ponziani's is a museum piece; I don't know if anyone uses the Staunton Gambit against the Dutch. S's comments about the Sicilian do not apply to modern play. My own inclination would be to move the last paragraph (1851 tournament) to 2nd place, so paras 1 and 2 cover his genuine historical impact. Then the rest deals with his less enduring contributions to theory and to chess playing style. Philcha (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Now that there's so much about the influence (or not) of his openings and style, I prefer to leave the 1851 tournament as the last para. -- Philcha (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Notable games "Done" items  Done This section should use the "cite web" template. I also don't remember seeing this done before, e.g. Alexander Alekhine is now a GA but uses the basic web link format. In fact using the "cite web" template might turn out badly, because there's a risk that the template or some bot will complaining about the lack of accessdates, and I'm not sure that we want "Retrieved on ..." messages in game titles. Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, you have convinced me using the "cite web" template in this section would not necessarily improve the article. SyG (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)  Done No game against Anderssen ? Fair point. I can't remember why I didn't include any - maybe it was late at night! Chessgames.com gives 2 wins and 4 losses against Anderssen. Both of Staunton's wins look to me like Staunton judging that Anderssen's attack was nothing to worry about, and therefore quietly going about his own business - rather similar to the Cochrane games. Adolf Anderssen vs Howard Staunton London 1857 is interesting because Staunton uses the Hedgehog Defence. Of the 2 wins, personally I think the 2nd is more interesting, because of the Hedgehog and because, although it's 54 moves, there's more action than in his 1851 win. What do you think? Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I've added Adolf Anderssen vs Howard Staunton London 1857. I don't understand why Anderssen committed suicide in the 1851 game. Philcha (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC) This could sound pointy, but I would give a quote for each game to explain this game has been considered as notable in a given book. That way the notability of these games is proved. I don't remember seeing this done before, e.g. Alexander Alekhine is now a GA but does not have such citations. And to be honest, I am not in a position to provide them. I simply went through chessgames.com looking for games that were fairly interesting, against strong players, and played at evens (that last criterion is quite narrow, as Staunotn gave odds to several masters). Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Your method of selection, or even the fact that you have selected the games yourself, sounds extremely close to WP:OR to me, even if I fully agree most chess articles do that. SyG (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I don't know of any "Staunton's Best Games" collection. Staunton used his own games in his articles, but quite possibly so many that we would still have a problem about which to select. [12] lists some "Notable games" (selected by whom?), which includes some but not all of the games I selected - but I find some of chessgames.com's selections less impressive. Chessgames is the only relevant hit I got by googling for "staunton best notable games". Philcha (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC) The section only gives brilliancies (and only victories) from Staunton, that does not seem neutral. AFAIK that's normal practice. I know of no other Wikipedia chessplayer articles that give any of the subjects' losses, or even their most heroic draws. I'm not sure I'd describe the Staunton games as "brilliancies". In fact based on the games I've seen at chessgames.com I'd describe Staunton as an "efficient" player rather than a "brilliant" one - I've seen nothing to compare with the most spectacular games of Anderssen, Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik (I'm thinking of Botvinnik vs Portisch 1968) or dozens of others. Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) As you point out, my word "brilliancies" is not the right one. I still think giving only victories from Staunton does not reflect the definition of "Notable games". Some games can be notable even if they resulted in a draw or a loss. I agree with you this is the same in all other chessplayer articles, and that may explain why there is zero such articles that have gone to FA-class. SyG (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC) The trouble is that adding historically notable losses or draws would make some "Notable games" sections very bulky. For example we would have to include: under Alekhine a lot of Euwe's wins from the 2nd half of the 1935 match, when Euwe came from behind to win the title; under Euwe a lot of Alekhine's wins from the 2nd half of the 1937 match, when the balance of the match swung completely in Alekhine favour; under Capablanca at least half his 6 losses to Alekhine in 1927; and god help us when we get to Botvinnik, who lost world championship matches against Smyslov, Tal and Petrosian! I think if a GA / FA reviewer complains about about the inclusion only of wins, we can say it's normal practice and point to books organised as a series of articles about players, e.g. Fine's World's Great Chess Games. Philcha (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Thinking of it again, I think the whole section is just original research, both in the choice of the games and in the commentaries provided. The only way I see to avoid original research in a section like this is to list only games that have been selected as notable by authoritative sources (e.g. in books), and give only descriptions coming from those authoritative sources. Probably the current state of the article would go through a GA-review without too much trouble, but that is not suitable for a FA-class. SyG (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC) See my comments above. If there are no suitable books, we ask the hypothetical FA reviewer whether he / she would prefer the "Notable games" section to be deleted. N.B. in this context Fine's World's Great Chess Games is IMO not a suitable source, as he selects only 1 of Staunton's games then mocks the play of both sides - Fine shares the American prejudice against S because of the Morphy affair. Philcha (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Tournament results "Done" items  Done There is an inconsistency for the 1851 tournament: it is written "best-of-3" and then "best-of 8". I suppose a hyphen is missing in the second one ?!  Done for the 1858 tournament, I guess the place cannot be given because it is a knockout. Then what would you think of giving Staunton's place with something like "5-12" ? I'm a tennis fan, so I'm familiar with knock-out competitions, but I wouldn't understand something like "5-12" without having this discussion (in a tennis context I'd expect e.g. "lost in the semi-final"). Philcha (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC) My concern was that "eliminated in the second round" does not say if it is a good or a bad performance (there could be only two rounds). But I have not find a better way of writing this, so let's consider it as done. SyG (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Match results "Done" items  Done In the 2nd column of scores, + shows games Staunton won, - shows his loss, = shows draws. : I would replace by In the second column of scores, "+" shows games Staunton won, "-" shows his losses, "=" shows draws. "loss" is a typo, which I've fixed. Re "+", etc., I think Wikiproject Chess needs to decide on 1 standard format for this. For example Alexander Alekhine, which was the first article to use result tables, has simply + etc. Philcha (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I am a bit wary of giving all references at the beginning, because then the reader does not know which statement is backed by exactly which reference. (it also creates the life hard for the reviewer, but that is secondary). I would personnally prefer that each line is backed by a reference, even if it is very heavy practice, and heavy style. It wasn't a problem in the Alexander Alekhine GA review. I think the problem with making your suggestion a general policy is that editors would avoid creating result tables, and would just list the results that the first convenient source considered notable. For example the only tournaments Fine ("World's Great Chess Games") mentions for Alekhine are Hamburg 1910, St Petersburg 1914, New York 1927, San Remo 1930 and Bled 1931 - Fine omits AVRO 1938. Philcha (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Probably it is not critical for GA-class, and we are still far away from the FA review, so I will strike that out for the moment. SyG (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Wow, you're working your socks off! What's the French for that? Thanks for giving it so much care and attention. Philcha (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Well, I usually have much less to say. But also my reviews tend to be longer when the article is already grown up. SyG (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Review by Brittle heaven: conclusion was "Oppose to A-class, support nomination for GA-class"

Comment I agree with SyG; without pre-judging the outcome of any review, the article is already impressive and his extensive comments will certainly help. And while there may be more material that could be included in the article, the present version seems to cover all of the important points very competently. Consequently, I will restrict my comments to just a few suggestions:- The Staunton Memorial Tournament, held every year in London since 2003 appears to have some permanency these days and I think deserves a mention here. For instance, the forthcoming 2008 (6th) edition is being described as probably the strongest tournament held in the UK since London 1986. Additionally, the event organisers are claiming a chess record this year, with IM Bob Wade set to become the oldest player to take part in a grandmaster tournament. Of course the tournament (also doubling as an England vs Netherlands match) has Ray Keene as its main organiser and evolved from the work of the Staunton Society, created in 1993 (also worth more prominence in the article?). Not quite sure where this material would best fit - a new Legacy section/sub-section? I think your're right, a new Legacy section/sub-section is the right place. What's the best WP:RS for the tournament as a regular event (date 1st held, etc.) and for "strongest tournament held in the UK since London 1986"? That apart, how much is there to say about the Staunton Society? Would an item in "External links" be sufficient? Philcha (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC) The Society, Memorial (each separate edition) and Simpson's Divan all have fairly comprehensive links from [13], so I don't think other sources are generally necessary. I agree, there's not much more can be said about the Society, other than dates, founder members etc. The previously neglected grave is already in the article and I recall this was the driving force behind the Society's formation, so that point could also be made. The claims for the 6th edition are given at [14] - which seems a good enough source. Nice article here also on the first edition - [15]. Many thanks! Done, hope you like the result. NB the book sales web sites date the Fontana edition 1975, so I've used 1975. BTW it's a separate top-level section as I didn't think it fitted naturally under the title "Assessment". The older common section title "Legacy" would have accomodated it more naturally, bu not some of the comments on e.g. playing style and personality. If anyone can think of a major section heading that fits all these types of content, go for it. Philcha (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC) One point made in the Keene Spectator article (and in other texts - e.g. The Kings of Chess - Hartston, Grandmasters of Chess - Schonberg) is Staunton's frequent attendance of The Divan in The Strand (often referred to as Simpson's Divan, after the head waiter who later became the proprietor), nowadays Simpson's in the Strand. Indeed, Schonberg goes as far as to say that during the fifteen years that Staunton was the best player in Europe, he could mostly be found at the Divan. Although he was also known to frequent the St. George Chess Club in Cavendish Square, I think the point about Simpson's would be well made, particularly as it emphasises the long association between Staunton and the Divan (i.e. it is the venue for the annual Memorial Tournament and I believe has a display case containing Staunton memorabilia). Re the ref, is that Grandmasters of Chess by Harold Schonberg, (Lippincott, 1973. ISBN 0-397-01004-4)? Can you provide a page number (see comments above)? Mine is the Fontana (1974) edition of Schonberg's Grandmasters of Chess. (Apologies, can't find an ISBN no. but pp.37-46 'The Age of Staunton' are the relevant pages). "fifteen years that Staunton was the best player in Europe"? The evidence I've seen supports no more than 8. If Schonberg says 15, he's wrong: from 1851 Anderssen reigned, apart from the short reign of Morphy; and 1851 minus 15 = 1836, when Staunton moved to London and said the good players could give him rook odds. Schonberg's 'fifteen years' confused me too. It seems to be based on the popular view of the time. As Hartston writes (p.35 The King Of Chess, Pavilion 1986). … "By the end of 1853, Staunton had in effect retired completely from match and tournament play, but it was only his evasion of a match with the young American, Paul Morphy, in 1858, which finally brought home to the majority of the chess-playing public that Staunton was no longer King." In fairness, Schonberg says about fifteen years, so he is also allowing for some small unspecified period during which Anderssen could have been considered the better player. Re the Divan, at present (without seeing how it would look on the page), I'm inclined to build that into the bit about the Staunton Memorial Tournament. What do you think? Re his freqenting mainly the Divan, during which period? The sources make it clear that the management of the 1851 tournament was dominated by the St. George Chess Club, and that this was why the London Chess Club played no part and organised a rival tournament. Philcha (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Neither Schonberg nor Hartston amplifies on periods that he favoured one club over the other. Schonberg says mostly the Divan (p.37). Hartston says he was strongly linked with both clubs (p.33). Yes, I agree, including mention of The Divan in association with the Memorial seems a reasonable point to insert it. I've included the Divan "which Staunton regularly visited in the 19th century to play and discuss chess", staying neutral about which was his favourite haunt. I think Schonberg's "fifteen years" part is a mess and best avoided. But thanks for all the info. Philcha (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding the worth (or academic opinion) of Staunton's Shakespearean works, I would agree that a modern perspective/critique may be useful. However, I think it may be equally valuable to give a quote from the 1909 Dictionary of National Biography … for example "Staunton's text was based on a collation of the folio editions with the early quartos and with the texts of modern editors from Rowe [1709] to Dyce [1857]. The conjectural emendations, which were usually sensible, were kept within narrow limits, and showed much familiarity with Elizabethan literature and modes of speech. The general notes combined common-sense with exhaustive research" (DNB, 1004)". Reference - [16] The ref used ([17]) quotes the DNB, though it does not say which edition. Philcha (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Whether it is encyclopedic or not is perhaps debatable, but other authors give the 'poignant' observation that Staunton died on Morphy's birthday. Worth including? I'd think not. If there's a 50% chance that at least 2 in a randomly selected group of 25 people share a birthday, I imagine the same works for deaths. Philcha (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Not sure I completely follow that one. Isn't the probability of dying on someone's birthday 1 in 365 or thereabouts? Statistics were never my strong point though! Never did the maths myself, but the point about "50% chance that at least 2 ..." is: it's a group of 25; you don't specify the date, it's enough that 2 or more were born on the same day. Relating that to the real subject, I'm a suggesting that if you picked 25 random Wikipedia bios of dead people, there's a 50% chance that 2 died on the same day, i.e. "died on the same day (of different years)" is not that big a deal. Philcha (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Philcha (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC) See birthday paradox; if you have 23 or more randomly seleted people, the odds are that two will have the same birthday exceeds 50%. At 30 and above, the likelihood goes up quickly. Krakatoa (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)  DoneFinally, there is a typo in reference 9. - £7,7000? Just checked it, seems OK. Advances in technology and business practices have raised productivity enormously in the last 150 years, so real incomes have outstripped real prices by a factor of almost 10. Philcha (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding the typo in ref. 9, I was simply querying whether there was one zero too many or the comma was in the wrong place! - £7,7000 ;-) you're right, I need to have my eyes tested. Should be 7,700 - fixed. Thanks for sparing mny blushes! Philcha (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, one further point in passing - a useful supplementary quote for the 'Playing Strength and Style' section is Bobby Fischer's description of Staunton as "The most profound opening analyst of all time" (TKOC p.33 - also given by Schonberg). Brittle heaven (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC) As I said above, I've omitted Fischer's comments about Staunton because Fischer never grew out of being a provocative teenager, so it's hard to tell when he was serious and when he was playing games with journalists and readers. In this case Fischer could not have foreseen Kasparov at the time but would have known about Botvinnik, Bronstein and other top Soviet analysts. Philcha (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Regards, Brittle heaven (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks! Philcha (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose 'A' Class I believe that the article in it's present form achieves 'GA' Class, but not 'A' Class. In it's scope, content and presentation it very much resembles the Alexander Alekhine article, which is also of 'GA' status. There are probably two distinct areas that I think currently hold it back from a more lofty classification; Staunton's strength. This may be controversial, but I'm really not happy with the way the article handles his chess playing stature; re-checking every competent source in my own library (Golombek, Sunnucks, Hooper & Whyld, Schonberg, Brace and Hartston) each and every one contends that Staunton was (or is generally regarded) the strongest player of his time. I have not read Keene and Coles' lengthy biography Howard Staunton:The English World Chess Champion, but from the title, I'm guessing it arrives at much the same conclusion. So why does this article undersell him as " … probably one of the world's two or three strongest players …" and " … the strongest British player with the possible exception of Buckle …"? Later, there is some (begrudging?) concession that some people hail Staunton as the strongest player, but are we really saying that the Spinrad article takes preference over all the other collected opinions? As much as I think that Spinrad's opinions are well researched and worthy of reproduction, they are still just opinions and I would personally reverse the emphasis in the lead (and elsewhere), giving what I believe to be the overwhelmingly popular view, much greater prominence. This arose from two main factors: some of S's contemporaries thought Buckle and von der Lasa were about as strong; I changed it from one of the best two ..." (von der Lasa the opther) to accommodate the views of another reviewer. Since Buckle and von der Lasa did not participate in prolonged contests it's impossible ot resolve objectively. Philcha (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I am aware that some of his contemporaries rate Buckle and von der Lasa as being of comparable strength and I'm very comfortable with it in the article, but as you state yourself, it's an impossible conflict to resolve objectively and so we'll never know the truth. Consequently, I am contending that the collective view of expert writers has to be the prominent lead, or the article could be seen as promoting a minority POV. There is no single collective view, because Staunton was so controversial. I don't particularly want to see the article become a shouting match between: in the blue corner, Morphy, Fischer, Kasparov and Hartston (who is pro-Staunton on play but anti- on personality); in the red corner, Fine, Horowitz and Reinfeld. The sad truth is that many writers who are normally WP:RS cease to be reliable because of the strong feelings aroused by the Staunton-Morphy affair - Fine, Horowitz and Reinfeld are the most striking cases. OTOH I'd take Morphy's word because he was complimentary despite the 1858 dispute, and Kasparov's because he does not belong to one of the nationalities involved, learned objectivity from Botvinnik and did a lot of his own research to find old ideas he could re-use (like the Scotch Game). The biggest problem of all is that most modern assessments do not explain themselves, cite sources, etc. That leaves open a worry that we might wind up quoting as a collective view opinions that can be traced back to just one source — as has happened with the history of the Staunton-Morphy controversy. -- Philcha (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC) This is too frustrating and I've no idea where it's going. I don't think for one minute that the collective view might all be traced back to one source; I think the various authors I mention above have more credibility than that. But rather than repeat my suggested approach 'ad nauseam', I'll now take a back seat on this one and wish you good luck ... and stop expanding the intro ... it's already too big! Brittle heaven (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Style. While some style issues can be tolerated within an 'A' Class article I feel that this one is too far away from a good style to be deemed satisfactory. First take a look at the article Petrarch (a MOS good example) and see how the lead section very briefly outlines the person's basic details, what they did and why they are significant - it is brief and succinct. Now contrast the Staunton lead - in comparison it rambles on and on, gives too much detail by trying to encompass every facet of his life with all of the relevant dates and then delves into his personality traits just for good measure. It is almost as long as some of the articles we would rate as 'B' Class and rather than pulling me into the article proper, it actually made me feel that I'd got enough of an overview that I didn't need to read on. AFAIK leads are supposed to summarise the article. Staunton had a lot of irons in the fire and was controversial in his own time and now. Evolution is a FA and has a considerably longer lead. If you can spare the time time I'd be happy to discuss with you how the lead might be slimmed down without omitting important points. I'm not sure you can compare an article like 'Evolution' with a bio, but you make a fair point. It is meant to be an overview, a stand-alone summary and this may well mean it has to be longer than the MOS example that I picked out. To take more relevant examples, I scoured the bios of other colourful, high achieving British characters and would say that some of the best written leads range from Oscar Wilde at the shorter end of the scale, to Winston Churchill at the longer, with say, George Best and Geoffrey Boycott somewhere in between. Does this help? It's not such a big deal, just taking out some of the detail "without omitting important points", as you rightly say. I'll be glad to help, if needed. I like the fact that Winston Churchill's lead is so true blue! Oscar Wilde is not such a good example, as the article has problems at the moment. I'll keep looking for ways to slim down the lead without sacrificing important points, and help with that would be welcome. -- Philcha (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC) In the "Influence on chess" section, almost every paragraph starts with the word Staunton - this really doesn't read well, giving the section all the grammatical character of a 'list' format … Staunton did this, Staunton did that, Staunton did the other … moreover, I found the constant repeating of the subject's name a bit tiresome throughout the article. I'll have look at that once the content is stable. Philcha (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC) The problem is that in most of the paragraphs Staunton is the subject of the 1st sentence but some aspect of modern play is the subject of the last, so "He" is not usually a good beginning for the next para. -- Philcha (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC) For most of the later sections, there seems to be an increasing reliance on piling up facts and quotes from various experts and commentators (a symptom of edit war skirmishes?). Whatever the reason, this can leave the reader a bit punch-drunk and stops the article from flowing—some prose to summarise and fill out the less contentious statements would make it a less chore-like read. Conversely, the more selective use of quotes and references for only the most controversial issues would, I think, make for a more pleasurable reading experience. With Staunton's high level of achievement in so many fields, not to mention his complex and colourful personality, I feel that the aim should be to give even the non-chess playing reader an interesting and engaging article. In my opinion, it's not quite there yet. Your comment about "edit war" seems appropriate. You might like to compare the version of 11:55, 27 June 2008 (18:44, 28 June 2008) with the version of 08:48, 29 June 2008 and check the diffs - and then a discussion further down this page. Philcha (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I agree that some earlier versions were better to read and I think we need to get the prose and flow back there somehow. What do you think of the idea of creating a separate article "The Staunton-Morphy controversy", as I have suggested elsewhere? I think Howard Staunton references just about enough material to justify a separate article, which might then, if we're lucky with sources, develop into a solid blow-by-blow account. That would allow Howard Staunton to summarise the more detailed article. I'd still want the summary to be the first sub-section of "Assessment", in order to clear the air. -- Philcha (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Finally, I hope that this doesn't seem too harsh. I still consider that the article is very good and well researched—a credit to the hard work that has gone into it. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your helpful comments. Philcha (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Review by Krakatoa: conclusion was "Oppose to A-class"

Comment A few remarks: the article claims that The Chess-Player's Handbook did not go out of print until 1993. That seems improbable. I have three copies of the book, which were printed in 1888, 1890, and 1893; one does not see versions for sale on eBay that were printed later than the 1890s, or maybe the 1900s. There might be a Hardinge Simpole version of the book or something many decades after that, but I would be surprised if the book were continuously in print until 1993. I've changed the text to "which was still in print in 1993", which avoids any implication that it was continuously in print. Thanks! The new wording also avoids the issue of when it was most recently in print. I've seen book sales sites that give e.g. 2003, but I'm not sure how reliable they are. If you see a later date than 1993 that you consider reliable, please edit it in. Philcha (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Is the Internet user "batgirl" really an authoritative source?! For which points? In some cases she quotes chunks of articles, and a few cases whole articles (Murray in BCM; Walker in Chess Player's Chronicle 1844). If there were a conflict between batgirl and Winter's Chess Notes I'd go with Winter, but otherwise batgirl is the same kind of source. Philcha (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I earlier added Fischer's assessment of Staunton as being in the top 10 players of all time, and his explanation thereof, from the January-February 1964 issue of Chessworld magazine. I see from the above comments that Philcha deleted that, apparently considering batgirl a more authoritative source than Fischer, generally agreed to be one of the two strongest players in the history of the world. The mind boggles. Krakatoa (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I've read lots of Fischer interviews, mainly in Chess, and know his love of being provocative. American writers of the time show a strong prejudice against Staunton (Mark Weeks said this; Fine and Horowitz are good examples), and it would be quite in character for Fischer to tweak their tails. AFAIK "one of the ten greatest players in history" put Fischer in a minority of one when he said it, and more recent research (cited) suggests von der Lasa was roughly on a par with Staunton. "Playing over his games, I discover that they are completely modern" needs a lot of explaining. "most profound opening analyst of all time" begs comparisons with Alekhine (tons of Alekhine variations) and Botvinnik (who created whole systems, not just variations), to name only 2. If Fischer had said e.g. "most innovative" or "most original", I think that would have been be consistent with the facts as presented by other sources. One of the difficulties with Fischer is that his command of English was below par because of his attitude to schools ("I don't take lessons from weakies" in an interview in Chess while he was still a teenager). Did the interviewer ask Fischer to explain these comments any further? If so, that might help to clarify the issue. You are free to think Fischer's assessment is superficial, provocative, or whatever you want. He is nonetheless a chess player and writer of enormous stature. The article is titled "The Ten Greatest Masters in History" by Bobby Fischer, as told to Neil Hickey." The section on each of the 10 players has 4-6 paragraphs explaining Fischer's reasons for the inclusion of each. It is not an interview. Krakatoa (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC) For the sake of completeness, here is the whole Fischer piece on Staunton. It appears to be written in literate English: Staunton was the most profound opening analyst of all time. He was more theorist than player, but nonetheless he was the strongest player of his day. Playing over his games, I discover that they were completely modern; where Morphy and Steinitz rejected the fianchetto, he embraced it. In addition, he understood all of the positional concepts which modern players hold so dear, and thus--with Steinitz--must be considered the first modern player. Besides his standardization of the chess set, Staunton's fame rests with the four important textbooks he wrote: the "Handbook," "The Chess Companion," "The Chess Tournament," and "Chess Praxis." Staunton appears to have been afraid to meet Paul Morphy, and I think his fears were well-founded. Morphy would have beaten him, but it wouldn't have been the one-sided encounter that many writers now think it would. It would have been a great struggle. Staunton often didn't beat weaker players as easily as his contemporaries did, and very few of his games show brilliancies. But when Staunton fianchettoed his King Bishop on the Black side of a closed Sicilian Defense his opponents had no conception of what he was doing and consequently, were generally wiped off the board. These were not just "fish" but the best players of his day. Staunton's right to be on a list of the ten greatest players of all time is firmly founded in the profundity of his insights, especially in the opening, and the great wealth of book knowledge that was his. Krakatoa (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC) It would help if you identified the batgirl ref that bothers you. If it's the English Opening, I've added Murray. If it's Morphy's assessment, the ref is to the book, and I added the url as a help to readers, most of whom won't have the book. Philcha (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC) The paragraph that I wrote about Fischer's assessment read as follows: Future World Champion Bobby Fischer, today generally regarded as one of the greatest players in history, wrote in a 1964 article that Staunton was one of the ten greatest players in history. Fischer explained, "Staunton was the most profound opening analyst of all time. He was more theorist than player, but nonetheless he was the strongest player of his day. Playing over his games, I discover that they are completely modern; where Morphy and Steinitz rejected the fianchetto, Staunton embraced it. In addition, he understood all of the positional concepts which modern players hold dear, and thus-with Steinitz-must be considered the first modern player." It seems to me that the manner in which Philcha deleted this paragraph was rather irregular, to say the least. The paragraph was last included in this version. Philcha deleted it (May 23, 2008 20:02), "explaining" in the revision history "(intro (almost done))". That is not enlightening, nor did Philcha put anything on the article's talk page about this omission. I am going to re-add this paragraph to the article. The Fischer article was published in 1964, by which time Fischer was already one of the strongest players of all time and a serious candidate for the world championship. Although Philcha does not think much of the article, it is significant enough to have been cited by Kasparov, for example. My Great Predecessors, Part IV, p. 87 (quoting Fischer's "splendid tribute" to Reshevsky in that article). Krakatoa (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Which parts of the Fischer interview did Kasparov cite in MGP? Did any of them mention Staunton and, if so, what did Kasparov say about this? Philcha (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I have not gone through all five volumes (about 2200 pages) of MGP to find every mention of Fischer's article. As I said above, the part I previously cited was about Reshevsky. In MGP, Part I, p. 21, Kasparov after discussing Staunton's match victories over Horwitz and Harrwitz, wrote "Despite this, Staunton was not properly recognised by either his contemporaries, or chess historians. But in 1964 Fischer included him in his ten best masters of all time, declaring: [K now quotes verbatim the exact language I quoted about Staunton from Fischer's article]". Krakatoa (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. I still think Fischer's choice of words was over-the-top, but if Kasparov cites it with approval, ... Philcha (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I still find "one of the ten greatest players in history" hard to swallow, despite having edited into Howard Staunton a lot more positive content than it previously had. How about: Future World Champion Bobby Fischer, today generally regarded as one of the greatest players in history, wrote in a 1964 article that Staunton was one of the ten greatest players in history. Fischer explained, "Staunton was the most profound opening analyst of all time ...." Philcha (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Fischer's statement struck me as surprising when I first read it, and it still strikes me as a bit surprising. However, my opinion, and yours, don't matter. See WP:NPOV, WP:RS. Fischer is commonly regarded today as one of the very greatest players in history. See, e.g., Hans Böhm and Kees Jongkind, Bobby Fischer: The Wandering King, p. 134 (IM Böhm, concluding his discussion of "Who is the Best Chess Player of all Time"?: "I am asking you to consider placing, in any case, Fischer and Kasparov in the top three".). Fischer is also commonly regarded as one of the greatest chess writers in history; recall the widespread praise for My 60 Memorable Games. This great chess player and writer wrote in 1964 that Staunton was (as of 1964) one of the 10 greatest players of all time. Kasparov, also commonly regarded as one of the very greatest chess players and writers in history, noted that Fischer had pronounced Staunton one of the 10 best and quoted the same explanatory paragraph I quoted. He didn't say "Fischer was nuts", "Fischer was just saying this to be provocative", "My judgment is to the contrary", or anything else derogatory about Fischer's opinion. Rather, Kasparov wrote, immediately before citing Fischer's opinion, that "Staunton was not properly recognised by either his contemporaries, or chess historians". In light of all that, I think the paragraph should stay as I wrote it. Whether you or I think it's over the top is irrelevant: unlike Fischer and Kasparov, we have no stature as chess authorities. Krakatoa (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Staunton's combative writing Winter (CN 4276: Rude and CN 4337: A chess Watergate) provides examples of acerbic comments by other writers of the time. Should I add a note about this to the comments about Staunton's chess writing style, e.g. "However his contemporaries could also be quite belligerent" (with these citations)? Philcha (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Another of Winter's articles provides many examples of Attacks on Howard Staunton. Philcha (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Influence on chess Krakatoa edited in the history of the Sicilian from Staunton's time to about 1900, which is fine. But after pointing out that the Sicilian almost vanished after the deaths of Staunton and Anderssen, the current version of the paragraph abruptly ends with "The Sicilian is today the most popular chess opening and the most successful response to 1.e4". Right now I can see 3 ways to deal with this: Explain how the Sicilian rose from the grave. It would be particularly nice if anyone could show that study of Staunton's games or writings had anything to do with this. Delete the final sentence. Convert the final sentence to a subordinate clause of the 1st, which would then read, "Staunton was one of the earliest champions of the Sicilian Defense, which is now the most popular chess opening and the most successful response to 1.e4. Any suggestions? Philcha (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)  Done I think your idea "Convert the final sentence to a subordinate clause of the 1st" is the best, and will rewrite it that way. I think the Sicilian Defence article suggests, correctly, that the Sicilian's renascence in the 20th century was more the result of the influence of its many 20th-century exponents than people rediscovering Staunton's ideas or anything like that. Krakatoa (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Fine, that would be my preference too - I included option "Delete the final sentence" only for completeness. Thanks. Philcha (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Krakatoa has done a lot more than clarify the bit about the Sicilian. He has edited into the "Influence" section every attack on Staunton he could find. The placement of this content in the "Influence section evades the counter-balancing points made in the "Assessment" section, and is irrelevant to the question of Staunton's influence. No doubt Krakatoa will argue that sources are sources. OK, try Site review - Online book catalogs (III; Howard Staunton) by Mark Weeks. Philcha (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I can find a lot more attacks on Staunton if I want to, believe me. The received wisdom during my chess childhood (the 70s) was that he was the scum of the earth, and there's no shortage of published sources saying that. What I put in the article only scratches the surface. I really have no ax to grind on Staunton. As you'll recall, I put in - and you deleted without mentioning that you were doing so - Fischer's laudatory discussion of Steinitz (top ten in history, games are thoroughly modern, he and Steinitz founded modern chess, yada yada yada). I've now reinserted both that discussion and Kasparov's praise of Staunton. Moreover, even some of the sources critical of Staunton I've mentioned are not outright condemnations, e.g. Hartston and Saidy/Lessing. I don't think one can have a balanced article about Staunton without acknowledging that there are lots of significant chess writers who despise the man. Krakatoa (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC) On looking at the whole "Influence on Chess" section, it seems to me that the last two paragraphs, which I wrote, kind of overwhelm the rest of the section, since they're longer than the other paragraphs and they conclude the section. If you want to move some of that stuff to the "Personality" section, or put more of the detail in references rather than text, or put it in a separate section or subsection, that's OK with me. Krakatoa (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I suggest you should clear it up in a way that does not mess up the structure of the article. In any kind of serious controversy your policy that a source is a source is a source breaks down. I have some idea of where the most hostile accounts originate from. See also Taylor Kingston's comment "Probably the biggest surprise was learning how carelessly the game’s history was handled by the writers I took as gospel in my youth, particularly Reinfeld, Horowitz, Fine and Evans; also Chernev to a lesser extent. The work of serious, more scholarly historians: Edward Winter, Jeremy Gaige, Ken Whyld, Bernard Cafferty and a few others, came as a revelation, inspiring me to be more careful and discerning in my own work." That's consistent with Mark Weeks' comments that I referred to above. Philcha (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I have moved the two paragraphs about Staunton (condemnatory and laudatory, respectively) to a separate section entitled "Modern Reputation." I never said "a source is a source is a source"; that is your invention. I have said that I respect Fischer's opinion of Staunton's stature, and that Fischer is a chess player and writer of great stature. I also said that the same is true of Kasparov (who quoted the same paragraph Fischer wrote about Staunton that I had quoted in the article, and that you deleted without comment or discussion). You apparently do not dispute my view of Kasparov's stature, at least. Please don't make up things that I never said. Krakatoa (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Lead I don't understand the first sentence in the article: "Howard Staunton (April 1810 – June 22, 1874) was an English chess master who was probably one of the world's two strongest players from 1843 to 1851." Why "probably one of the world's two strongest?" Maybe I am missing something, but as far as I can see this doesn't tie into anything in the rest of the article. The article says, for example, that some people (mostly Englishmen) hailed S as world champion; other Europeans were less enthusiastic about that idea; even some Englishmen thought S wasn't the best, preferring someone else, notably Buckle or von der Lasa (note that if both Buckle and von der Lasa were better than S, than would make him No. 3); Chessmetrics ranks S No. 1 in the world 1843-49 (I'm leaving off the months) and in the top 10 from 1851 on (Chessmetrics apparently doesn't address 1849-51? This also wouldn't support saying "top 2 from 1843-51", seemingly.); and Elo said that except for Morphy (whose playing career began well after 1851) S scored best against other top players in 1846-62 (this would support "No. 1 in 1843-51", not "top 2"). Someone should either explain why this sentence is consistent with the rest of the article, or revise it. Krakatoa (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC) First, we're talking about the lead, which is supposed to be a summary, so it can't cover all the details.  Done Re "how many world number ones", it's genuinely difficult because both Buckle and von der Lasa played only a few games at a time, and neither played a full-scale match - Buckle because of his frail health (IIRC Bird's Reminiscences mentions that somewhere in its vast ramblings), von der Lasa because of his commitments as a civil servant / diplomat. I would not mind if the lead said "one of the world's two or three strongest players from 1843 to 1851". That would entail mentioning Buckle in the main text, but it should include the fact the Buckle avoided serious matches because of his health. Until the 1860s formal chess competitions were very rare, and it was hard to distinguish between odds/even games and between informal games played close together and serious matches (Staunton-Cochrane is a good example). These factors make statistical systems only rough guides for this period - for example Chessmetric's ranking charts show a lot of volatility. I think it's important to avoid spurious precision. That's why the lead says "probably one of ...". I don't have the Elo rankings, but am surprised it says S scored best against other top players in 1846-62, as every other indication is that from 1851 onwards Anderssen was stronger than Staunton, and Morphy was in a class of his own. Can you explain a little about how Elo did his calculations for this period? I'd like to avoid the risk of relying on what might be a statistical artifact - for example, if Elo found so few serious games in the mid-19th century that he was concerned about the small sample size, he might have put all games 1846-1862 in one "bucket", and that would disguise Morphy's absolute dominance in 1858 and weaken Anderssens's score, as sources say he improved a lot shortly before London 1851. Philcha (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I will give full details later (no time at the moment), but Elo listed all the leading players in that time period, and constructed a "crosstable" of all results between them. Morphy of course had by far the highest proportion, but Staunton was second (.591, as I recall), as I recall a good deal ahead of Harrwitz (.543 or something), who was third. Not sure why Anderssen wasn't higher; that is a little surprising. Krakatoa (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC) OK, I really must learn to read. What I said above is correct as far as it goes, but I didn't read far enough. In section 3.43 in Elo's book (Arpad E. Elo, The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present, Arco Publishing, 1978, p. 55, ISBN 0-668-04721-6), which is what I alluded to above, Elo does indeed construct a quasi-crosstable of results among the top nine players, using as his data "342 games, all the match, tournament, and exhibition encounters of record for these players between 1846 and 1862." Morphy scored .726, Staunton .591, Harrwitz .542, Anderssen .513, Kolisch .500, Lowenthal .474, Paulsen .447, Williams .399, Horwitz .378. That's what I cited in the article. Unfortunately, until today I had never turned the page! D'oh! In sections 3.44 to 3.46 (p. 56), I now learn that Elo assigned all the players an arbitrary starting "rating" of 500 just for purposes of calculation. He then used the proportions I have just given to approximate the players' relative ratings (i.e. Morphy's "rating" becomes much higher than 500, Horwitz' considerably lower, etc.) Elo then used successive approximations (i.e. he substituted the new differentiated ratings for the original 500 for everyone, then recalculated), and did this multiple times until he got pretty stable "ratings" for the whole group. He says 2000 should be added to those numbers to get approximations of modern Elo ratings. Doing so, we get Morphy 2695, Anderssen 2552, Harrwitz 2518, Kolisch 2516, Staunton 2508, Lowenthal 2505, Paulsen 2502, Williams 2425, Horwitz 2406. So as you had expected Morphy is first by a mile, Anderssen is second, and everyone else is well behind him. This "method of successive approximations" is the same one that Elo used to establish the first international rating list (p. 56). Of course, the reason Staunton's proportion was second to Morphy's, and Anderssen's so lackluster, is that Anderssen played 17 games against Morphy, scoring 4-13, while Staunton achieved a 0-0 score against Morphy. The proportions that I quote in the article are thus completely misleading. In the last table in his book (section 9.5, pp. 191-96), Elo gives the "best 5-year averages" that he has calculated for "Untitled Chessmasters" (i.e. the average Elo rating a player achieved in his best 5 years). For the same group of players, these are Morphy 2690 (covers period of active play, of less than five years), Anderssen 2600, Kolisch 2570, Paulsen 2550, Staunton 2520, Harrwitz 2520, Lowenthal 2510, Williams 2450 (for less than five-year period of active play) Horwitz 2420. Incidentally, he also gives Buckle 2480 (again covering sub-5-year period of active play), and has no entry for von der Lasa (not enough data, I'm guessing). Unfortunately, Elo doesn't tell us what the peak 5 years were for each player. Kolisch lived 1837-89 and Paulsen 1833-91, so no doubt their peaks came long after Staunton's. Unfortunately, since none of Elo's statistics are broken down by years with the particularity we would like (i.e. what was the rank of the top players in 1843-51, etc.), I'm not sure if any of this is useful for the article. I'm going to remove the Elo statistics I gave in the article. If anyone can figure out how to use in the article the statistics I've given here, be my guest. I apologize for my lack of reading comprehension. Returning to the initial subject - what to say in the first sentence - there are various choices: 1. Howard Staunton (April 1810 – June 22, 1874) was an English chess master who was probably one of the world's two or three strongest players from 1843 to 1851. 2. Howard Staunton (April 1810 – June 22, 1874) was an English chess master whom many considered the strongest player in the world from 1843 to 1851. 3. Howard Staunton (April 1810 – June 22, 1874) was an English chess master who was arguably the strongest player in the world from 1843 to 1851. My inclination would be to go with 2 or 3, or something along those lines. Based on what Elo wrote (I haven't looked at Chessmetrics), Buckle's and von der Lasa's claims seem shaky at best. If one is "the strongest player in the world" but doesn't play, at some point it becomes unreasonable to keep calling one "the best player in the world" (see Bobby Fischer, Paul Morphy). Calling them that is almost as silly as saying "Harry Nelson Pillsbury and Rudolf Charousek were the best players in the world in 1910, except for the fact that they were both dead." Krakatoa (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC) "two or three strongest players from 1843 to 1851" Philcha (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Paul Morphy The article covers the Staunton-Morphy controversy in the most bland and Staunton-favorable manner imaginable. The text (including that accompanying the picture of Paul Morphy) is flagrantly POV. It also cites H.J.R. Murray as though he were the only person who had ever written on the subject, and treats what Murray says as the final (and only) word. Here is a timeline I have constructed from the Internet source "batgirl," who is cited (except on this subject!) throughout the article. (Everything on batgirl's website regarding Staunton and Morphy appears to be copied, without attribution, from print sources.) All dates are in 1858: June 23: Morphy, following his arrival in England, meets Staunton and inquires about match. Staunton agrees but asks for a month to brush up on his openings. Morphy agrees. Thereafter, Morphy and Barnes play two consultation games against Staunton and Owen at Staunton's country home, winning 2-0. [18] Early July – Staunton asks for more time, specifically until after the Birmingham tournament, which begins August 24. Morphy reluctantly agrees. Id. August 14 – Morphy sends Staunton a note asking to firm up match arrangements. Staunton says he needs still more time. [19] August 21 – Morphy again asks Staunton to set definite terms for the match, any terms he wants. Staunton leaves for Birmingham without replying. Id. Late August – Morphy goes to Birmingham, finds Staunton; Staunton immediately takes "the initiative, asking for more time, citing his urgent business and his publisher's pressure, etc. Morphy, exasperated, ask[s], 'Mr. Staunton, will you play in October, in November, or December? Chose your own time but let the decision be final.' Staunton replie[s], 'Well, Mr. Morphy, if you will consent to the postponement, I will play you the beginning of November. I will see my publishers and let you know the exact date in a few days.'" Id. August 28 – Staunton, using a tactic for which he has become infamous, publishes a letter in his own chess column, signed by "Anti-book" but undoubtedly written by Staunton himself, in which he falsely claims that (1) Morphy had failed to bring representatives to resolve the terms of the match; (2) Morphy did not have the necessary stakes for the match, and (3) Morphy had asked that the stakes be reduced from £1000 a side to £500 a side. Morphy does not respond to this calumny. [20] October 6 – Morphy, after winning his match with Harrwitz, writes to Staunton "expressing his dismay at the Anti-book letter, blankly declaring the availability of the stakes to any amount, and solving the question of seconds. He asked yet again for a fixed date, mentioning that a copy of the letter would go to several editors to clear any public misconceptions." Id. October 9 – Staunton replies, "reiterating all his same reasons for previous postponements, but now using them to bow out of the match altogether." Id. October 23 – "Staunton published his entire reply along with a partial rendition of Morphy's original letter (leaving out any reference to Anti-book). This [leads] to a series of exchanges of anonymous and acrimonious letters in different columns." Id. Morphy does not engage in any of this, but writes a letter to British Chess Association president Lord Lyttelton, "explaining his own efforts to bring about the match, Staunton's efforts to avoid the match with everything short of admitting he didn't wish to play, and of Staunton's twisting of the facts in the Illustrated London News, demanding 'that you shall declare to the world it is through no fault of mine that this match has not taken place.'" "Lord Lyttelton replied with a mild rebuke of Staunton's tactics and the assurance that no one blamed Morphy for the situation. The letters continued, Staunton's vituperations against Morphy continued, but the situation was basically settled in the public's mind since all but one British chess club, the Cambridge University Chess Club, denounced Staunton's actions in this matter." Id. To sum up: repeated agreement by Staunton that he would play the match, but four requests by Staunton for additional time to prepare (made June 23, early July, August 14, late August); the August 28 "Anti-book" letter published in Staunton's column making false and slanderous charges against Morphy; Staunton bowing out of the match on October 9; Staunton publishing an incomplete account of the facts on October 23; Staunton continuing his vituperations against Morphy; no such slanders by Morphy, whose actions are at all times completely gentlemanly, at any time; Staunton's actions are denounced by all British chess clubs, with only one exception. The article presents none of this, nor does it explain what, if anything, about the above account is wrong. Rather, it suggests that Morphy failed to comprehend that Staunton was declining his offer, that Staunton acted honorably but was unable to play the match because of his health and work (the batgirl account says nothing in this regard about Staunton's purported health problems), and that the worst thing Staunton did was not declining Morphy's offer more clearly. This appears to be a blatant whitewash, and a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. Krakatoa (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry for the brevity of the following - I'd finished writing and checking a longer response when my browser died(*£$%^!). You've just made an excellent case for a separate article on the Staunton-Morphy controversy. Discussion of this topic starts from a difficult situation - the popular writers Horowitz, Fine and Reinfeld damn Staunton comprehensively, but serious historical researchers consider them inaccurate. The misconceptions arising from Horowitz, Fine and Reinfeld have to be swept away in order to prepare readers for a more accurate account. For example the "prolific" writers say S avoided strong opponents, but S put considerable effort into seeking a 3rd match with St.-Amant and a match with Anderssen. Murray presented the initial correspondence between Morphy's supporters and Staunton because he thought the interpretation of Staunton's reply was crucial. M thought S's reply was a polite refusal, which Morphy or his supporters misinterpreted. If Murray was right, it's hard to see how there could have been a good outcome. Are there any good sources that interpret S's initial response as deliberately misleading? Re S' reaching for the vitriol when the 2 sides got sucked into a blame game, that was normal chess journalistic practice at the time, in both England and USA (see citations in my attempt above to generate discussion on "Staunton's combative writing"; and they were comparatively mild, see Winter's "Attacks on Staunton" page). In the sort term (before a separate article on the Staunton-Morphy controversy is complete) we need to agree what should go into Howard Staunton. I suggest you do as I did in response to some of SyG's comments above - draft a new version on a sub-page and publish it for comment / contributions. I'm not terribly concerned that it should exonerate Staunton, provided that it points out: the unreliability of popular accounts; that the there are good sources for more than 1 interpretation of Stauntons' actions; that immediately before and shortly after (Chess Priaxis, 1860) S was enthusiastic about Morphy's play; that chess journalism was bare-knuckle in those days. Philcha (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Who was/were batgirl's source(s) for the stuff I've quoted? My impression was that she was citing verbatim, without attribution, material that someone else wrote. (If so, there are names for that sort of thing ...) I've taken a quick look at Lawson's book about Morphy, Edge's book, Sergeant's two books, Max Lange's book, the Reinfeld/Soltis book, and Lawson's 1964 Chessworld article, and don't find this material in those sources. (Lawson and Sergeant have material similar to, but not identical to, batgirl). Are you saying that Fine or Horowitz or Reinfeld is the source? From what book? I'm not aware that any of them wrote about the Morphy-Staunton imbroglio at such length. I don't know. The only batgirl content cited for the Staunton-Morphy controversy in Howard Staunton is Murray's 2 articles in BCM 1908, which are attributed. Philcha (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC) As to Staunton's original letter, I agree that it could be read as a polite declination (i.e. "In Europe, you'll meet many champions eager to do battle with you, but I'm not one of them."). But as batgirl, or whatever the original source is, said, Staunton knew that Morphy interpreted it differently, and did nothing to disabuse him of that interpretation. To the contrary, Staunton's statements repeatedly confirmed to Morphy that he was willing to play a match. As Frederick Edge wrote in a letter to the editor of Bell's Life dated October 20, 1858, "we are relieved from the difficulty of discovering Mr. Staunton's real meaning by his reiterated declarations that he would play Paul Morphy. Within a few days of the latter's arrival in London, the English player stated his intention of accepting the match, but postponed the commencement of it for a month, on the plea of requiring preparation. In the month of July the acceptance of the challenge was announced in the Illustrated London News. Before the expiration of the time demanded in the first instance, Mr. Staunton requested that the contest should not take place until after the Birmingham meeting. At Birmingham he again declared his intention of playing the match, and fixed the date for the first week in November, in the presence of numerous witnesses." Edge quotes from Lord Lyttleon's published address to the Birmingham meeting, in which he wishes Morphy success against all the players of Europe, except Staunton, whom Lyttleton as an Englishman hopes will triumph against Morphy. Frederick Milne Edge, The Exploits & Triumphs in Europe of Paul Morphy the Chess Champion, pp. 108-12. Sergeant wrote, "Edge, although English by birth, was very biased against Staunton; but we can hardly think that his prejudice went so far as to allow him to falsify the evidence." Phillip W. Sergeant, Morphy's Games of Chess, p. 13 n.*. As I commented earlier in our discussion, if Murray was right in suggesting that Staunton meant "Thank you for the honour, but I regret I cannot oblige Mr. Morphy" and that Morphy or his supporters misunderstood Staunton's florid prose, it's hard to see how there could have been a good outcome. Murray says Staunton took on too much by organising the 1851 tournament and playing it (Murray does not say whether S was also working on Shakespeare at the time). Warning - what follows is WP:OR: taking on too much may have been a habit for S; once Morphy was in Europe S's pride might have pushed him into trying to meet the challenge; S had put a lot of effort into trying to play a 3rd match against St.-Amant and a match against Anderssen, so temperamentally he was inclined to look for rathe rthna avoid challenges; the acceptance of Morphy's challenge in the Illustrated London News looks as likely to be over-optimism as Macchiavellian dissimulation.(end WP:OR) If there are historically reliable sources that oppose Murray's interpretation of Staunton's initial response, they should be quoted. Otherwise I think we have to present Murray's interpretation and leave it at that. That does not imply that those who were aggrieved on Morphy's behalf were guilty of dishonesty - as I said, if there was a misunderstanding, it's hard to see a good outcome. Philcha (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC) As for bare-knuckled chess journalism being the style of the day, it certainly was Staunton's style, and probably Harrwitz's, but I don't think it was universal. Morphy, Anderssen, Lowenthal and surely many others did not practice it. See also Winter's "Attacks on Howard Staunton". Steinitz was also a noted polemicist (not just on the subject of Staunton), and some of Steinitz' enemies were pretty liberal with their insults (see for example NY Times, 1887). Perhaps bare-knuckled chess journalism was not universal, but it was pretty common. Philcha (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I've dumped my unabridged notes about batgirl's (or whoever's) account of the Staunton-Morphy dispute into [21]. Have at it (you or anyone else who's interested). But I really don't have an infinite amount of time to spend on this. I also think that we have to find out who batgirl's source(s) is/are, or use other sources. As I've suggested before, I don't think batgirl, on her own, can be considered a reliable source. Krakatoa (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC) In such a controversial matter as this I would also prefer to see attributions. If I had time I might try Googling for phrases from the stuff batgirl quotes - Google Books has been kind to me in the past. But even then I would only consider it if we were producing a separate, more detailed article about the controversy. Philcha (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Do we even know which Batgirl batgirl is? Or is she just the female equivalent of a batboy? :-) Krakatoa (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Answering my own question, she's one Sarah Beth Cohen, apparently. Krakatoa (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, she is. batgirl quotes "Anti-book" as writing that the stakes were originally set at £1,000 a side, then reduced to £500 a side. Such high stakes would have been astonishing in 1858 - Anderssen's prize for London 1851 was two-thirds of the total prize fund of £500, i.e about £335; that is equivalent to about £240,000 in 2006's money ([22]). The stakes were £100 a side in both the second Staunton vs Saint-Amant match (Paris, 1843) and the Anderssen vs Steinitz match (London, 1866); Steinitz and Zukertort played their 1886 match for £400 a side; Morphy reluctantly played for 100 pounds a side in 1858, but his matches with Anderssen, Harrwitz and others were for merely nominal stakes.(Bird's Chess History and Reminiscences, section on stakes). Philcha (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Conclusion I am on vacation right now, and thus would not normally be posting a comment at this time. However, SyG on my Talk page asked my current assessment of the article (A-class, GA-class, or something else) because he wanted to close the A-class review. The article is very well done in most respects, and in most respects I would have no problem supporting A class. However, regretfully I do not feel it warrants A class at this time because of its treatment of the Staunton-Morphy controversy. The section on that controversy is written in a strange way, starting out with a lengthy attack on Frederick Edge rather than discussing what Edge says. Edge (and later Lawson, who relies in part on Edge) set out a lengthy chronology of events (various letters, multiple requested postponements by Staunton to which Morphy assents, the infamous "anti-book" letter published in Staunton's column, and Staunton's final declination of the match), which is decidedly unflattering to Staunton. (I set out a brief chronology of those events above under "Paul Morphy".) The current section on the Staunton-Morphy controversy does not set out those events, but instead focuses on attacking Edge and closes out with Murray, a pro-Staunton commentator who glosses over a lot of relevant events, and treats him as the final word on the subject. I do not think this is a NPOV treatment, nor do I think it is written in an appealing style (the text of the article should focus on the facts as best they can be ascertained rather than on attacking Edge). Thus, at this time I regretfully oppose promoting this article to A class. I intend after I get back home and finish some outstanding personal matters to work on the Staunton-Morphy section. I hope to get that section in a state that I would consider NPOV and A-class-worthy (obviously, others may or may not agree). But if forced to vote today, I must vote against A class. My understanding is that GA class is not formally on the table at the moment, since that review has not started, but at this time I would also oppose GA class for the same reason. I say all of this regretfully, and with utmost respect for all of the work that people have put into the article. Krakatoa (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, I have made quite a few edits to the article (146), so I probably should be disqualified from voting on it. Krakatoa (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion by SyG: A-class was not reached

All the conditions required to close this review are met: three different editors have reviewed the article and expressed an opinion. more than three weeks have occurred since the beginning of the review. more than one week has passed since the last comment was made in the review. All reviewers agree this is an outstanding article that Philcha has developed here. Also kudos to him to have stand the continuous flow of "constructive remarks" coming from the reviewers, myself in first place. Unfortunately the article still has issues to deal with: I consider the section on Notable games to contain WP:OR. This may be a general problem in most chess biographies, so probably this point will need to be addressed globally in the WikiProject Chess. Brittle heaven considers the strength of Staunton is not appropriately dealt with, and there are also style issues. Krakatoa considers the treatment of the missed match between Staunton and Morphy is too favourable to Staunton, thus missing WP:NPOV. Therefore, I shall close the review and declare the article is not judged up to the A-class for the moment. I wish to this article a good luck for its try into the GA-review. SyG (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Review of Swindle (chess)

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Swindle (chess). The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by Krakatoa

I have put a ton of work into this article, and think it is quite comprehensive, well-sourced, and has excellent examples. I have looked at a lot of sources, and I frankly think that this article covers the subject better than anything I've seen in the literature. There are a lot of books along the lines of "How to Defend Difficult Positions," such as "The Art of Defense in Chess" (Soltis), "The Art of Defence in Chess" (Polugaevsky/Damsky), etc., but there is not much on swindles as such: how to try to rescue yourself from a clearly lost position. And I haven't seen anything that treats swindles in a comprehensive way, as this article does. Apart from Marshall, who reveled in swindles, most authors tend to shy away from the subject, considering swindles somehow uncouth. Even great swindles usually don't make it into players' "best games" collections, since people like to show off games where they played brilliantly the entire way, rather than games where they played badly, got lost positions, then bamboozled their way out. (For example, Bouaziz-Miles, a swindling masterpiece, is not in Miles' biography, and Karpov's "My 300 Best Games" doesn't include Karpov-Csom. Very few players have ever heard of Beliavsky-Christiansen, maybe the greatest swindling game of all time.) Anyway, enough blathering. I hope you like the article. Thanks for your consideration. Krakatoa (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)/ WITHDRAWN BY PROPONENT This article is obviously unworthy, and should be deleted instead. Krakatoa (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Review by Voorlandt: conclusion was "Comment"

Comment: Thanks a lot for your work on this article, it looks very comprehensive. I don't have time to go through it now, but I can tell you that the biggest hurdle to get this article featured will be (a) the topic, (b) the style of the article. This is the sad reality of featured articles! Now I am not saying that the topic isn't worth being featured, or that the article is written in a bad style, just saying that if you are trying to make this article featured, you should be prepared being attacked on both. I ran the article to the automatic peerreviewer bot, and here is the output (this should help improving (b)): The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question: Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?] Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?] Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?] Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?] Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?] This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?] The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, didn't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] Voorlandt (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks! I will definitely look into all of that. I didn't realize that getting an article featured was such a ritual, although I should have expected as much. I don't generally look at the featured articles, but looked at today's on the Philadelphia Inquirer. No doubt it's impolitic to say so, but I was pretty underwhelmed. Ungrammatical sentences, at least one misspelling, whole paragraphs making assorted factual assertions without a single reference, etc. Krakatoa (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Yeah I am just mentioning it, since I had a rather bad experience with Bughouse Chess. For the article I read several books, spend weeks researching and contacted a dozen of people for info. In my obviously biased opinion it is the most balanced and complete essay ever written on bughouse. Nevertheless, it was critized for its length and for the lack of history section. Although it is hardly my fault the history is unknown! What matters for FA more is (1) the topic; (2) the length of the article and perhaps the most important one (3) whether it looks good! Shorter articles, with less text are read far more thoroughly than long articles, and therefore far more prone to critic. I have also seen many long FA articles riddled with mistakes. That said, don't let my bad experience discourage you. The first step is of course getting this article through A and GA review. I think it needs a little bit more work, but not much. Voorlandt (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Bughouse chess indeed looks like a very thorough article, and I'm sorry you didn't make it. But I appreciate learning of your unhappy experience: that way I won't take it too hard when Swindle (chess) gets shot down . . . . Krakatoa (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Review by SyG: conclusion was "Comment"

Comments This is clearly a very good article on a difficult and understudied subject. Apart from Voorlandt's comments, here are some additional remarks if we want to narrow the gap to FA-class: The article includes Original Analysis, and that is forbidden in Wikipedia! See for example the 38th reference. In the lead, I do not understand the difference between the first sentence "In chess, a swindle is a ruse by which a player [...] achieves a win or draw instead of the expected loss" and the second sentence "It may also refer more generally to obtaining a win or draw from a clearly losing position". Probably the first sentence refers to one-mover and the second is more general, but this could be more explicit. As the lead states that certain players [...] have become famous for their swindling exploits, I would expect to see a section in the article on famous swindlers (with due references, of course), otherwise it is just reckoning. Some diagrams have a legend that is too long. I would expect the legends to be no more than one line. I would suggest to systematically include in the legend of the diagrams the move number at which is position is obtained. Most sections in Recurrent themes are just a collection of examples. Would it be possible to add a bit more substance (I mean, some general considerations in each chapter) to make it a bit more "encyclopedic" ? In the section Perpetual check there are interesting remarks about the pieces that are good for attack but suddenly bad for defence, making it impossible to the player to adapt to the new situation. Maybe these considerations could be generalised, developped and put into the section Practical consideration as they are not valid only for perpetual check. The section Practical consideration is the most encyclopedic one. In order to promote it, I would propose to put it before the section Recurrent themes, and to split it into different subsections (for the moment it is too long). There seems to be some syntax problems here and there (although I am a pure patzer in syntax), just to name a few: The first sentence of the section Classic example lacks an ending point. Same section, the second sentence has a reference placed in the middle of the text, which is not in line with the Formating Guidelines, as far as I know. Same section, sentence but Marshall saw an opportunity for "a last 'swindle", there seems to be a lonesome comma in the quotation. In "de Firmian-Shirazi", in the sentence "since 31.Qxe4 allows 31...Rfl#." there is a "l" instead of a "1". The sentence "Draw by perpetual check is another oft-seen way of swindling" when the word "often" is misspelled. The sentence "However, Krogius warns that one should deliberately get into time trouble only after after a detailed assessment of a number of considerations" contains twice the word "after". There is no History section; that could be useful to know if there are more or less swindles than in the past, e.g. due to the improvement of chess computers. There is no example with a chess computer, whereas I believe they are very good in swindles due to their great tactical abilities. The consequences of famous swindles could be explained further, e.g. for "the swindle of the century". In the Stalemate section, a sentence says "Another famous Marshall swindle is Marshall-MacClure, New York 1923 (diagram at right)" while I understand it should be "(diagram at left)". In the Weak back rank section, the first sentence says "Mating threats along the opponent's back rank often enable one to win or draw from a lost position." which is precisely the definition of swindles, if I understand correctly. Therefore a more consise formulation could be something like "Mating threats along the opponent's back rank often enable one to swindle." Having the diagrams first and the explanations next could be found a bit confusing for the casual reader, especially as there is no clear separation between the different articles. Maybe sometimes some subsections could be used ? In the example "Chigorin-Schlechter, Ostend 1905", I find there are too many exclamation marks in the explanations, as I would only give an exclamation mark to 44...Qc7, the other ones being nor difficult to find, nor forced. I do not see the point of putting wikilinks for years, like 1997, especially when the sentence has nothing special to do with the concerned year. The article contains some Id. references that do nothing apart from taking space, while it is better in Wikipedia to cite several times the same reference without creating a separate line every time. In the first sentence about "de Firmian-Shirazi", we can read "GM de Firmian is ahead three pawns" while I am not sure it has been explained above that "GM" stands for Grandmaster ? Same remark for "IM Shirazi". The difference between a swindle and a blunder is not clearly explained. I mean, do you have a swindle every time there is a trick in the position ? Or is it only when you play second-best move that sets up a trap ? I am not sure the "Zukertort-Steinitz, London 1883" example is a good one, as I do not see the swindle. I mean, Black has sacrificed an exchange to decentralised the White queen and get an attack, then the attack succeeds because White blunders. But where is the ruse ? Same remark on "Donner-Fischer": is it really a swindle ? it looks like just a blunder from Fischer. Same remark on most of the examples in the Material insufficiency section: not really swindles to me, just good play from the side with the less material. This is acknowledgeg in the article, but then why keep them here ? A good example of swindle could be the recent game "Grischuck-Polgar" when Polgar managed to save a K+N+2P/K+N endgame. Very generally, in a FA review there could be some critics regarding the need for an article on the subject, for example: What is the need for an article on "swindling in chess" ? I mean, there could just be an article called "Swindle (games)" ? Is there any way swindles in chess are particular, e.g. compared with swindles in Go or Checkers ? Why is this theme encyclopedic, and not just trivia ? Given the references, it seems noone has bothered to publish some work dedicated to this subject, so maybe this is just a collection of anecdotes ? Why is this theme encyclopedic, and not just a definition ? Why not just moving the definition to Wiktionnary, instead of an article in Wikipedia ? I hope you don't find these comments too harsh or pointy, of course the aim is just to improve the article and maybe prepare a FA review, which are often very depressing. SyG (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion by SyG: A-class was failed
Close the review As the nominator has withdrawn the nomination for the article, I shall close the review. SyG (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of Chess World Cup 2007

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Chess World Cup 2007. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by ChessCreator
This article previously was rated 'A' and it's rating got removed because it never had a review, hence adding it here. ChessCreator (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Review by Bubba73: conclusion was "Oppose"

Oppose I do not think this should be an "A" article. First, it covers the technical aspects (pairings, etc) very well and completely. However, there are no key games or positions given. There are no photos. And even if there were games, positions, and photos, there are articles that are about more important events. There are several world championship matches that don't have articles. Bubba73 (talk), 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC) There is much good technical stuff, but not much that makes the event interesting. Bubba73 (talk), 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Review by SyG: conclusion was "Oppose", suggested for GA-class

Oppose to A-class. My first reasons are: The lead is too short and not well organised. For example it mix up important elements (location, date, purpose) and minor/trivia ones (two 17-years-old). Some whole chapters do not have any reference, e.g. the "Background" chapter. Some sentences are too subjective. For example in "Prominent non-participants" it says "All other leading players [...] were eligible to participate", but noone defined which players are leading and which are not. There are no key games mentioned. There are no photos. There is no "Footnotes" section distinct from the "References" section. Some wikilinks work only with redirects. Some wikilinks are superfluous, e.g. the one linking "$" to the wiki article "United States dollar". There are some external links directly in the article, e.g. some ChessBase reports. It is not immediately clear to me why the rounds 5-7 are placed before the rounds 1-4. Is there a Wikipedia Guidelines on this type of formatting ? However, as it is still a well-enough organised article, I would suggest to consider it for GA-class. SyG (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Review by Voorlandt: conclusion was "Oppose"
Oppose This is a typical well written class B article, but IMO doesn't qualify for A class. I applaud the large amount of encyclopaedic content, but for A class there should be much more text and definitely a photo. Voorlandt (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Review by ChessCreator: conclusion was "Oppose"
Oppose No photo ChessCreator (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion by SyG: A-class was failed
Close the review Given that: the article has already garnered 4 negative votes, including one from the original nominator, no one has made a positive evaluation, no one is doing changes to the article for now to take into account the critics, I shall close this review and declare the article has failed to pass to A-class. SyG (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of Alexander Alekhine

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Alexander Alekhine. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by youngvalter
Currently assessed as A-Class by User:Ioannes Pragensis. Any objections? youngvalter 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by Voorlandt: conclusion was "Oppose"

Object per peerreviewer (especially the Lead and Trivia section and own comments below). The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?] If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?] Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?] There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. allege might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), favourite (B) (American: favorite), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), traveled (A) (British: travelled). Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] I also think that the General references section could be expanded. Currently there is listed 1 biography and 3 general reference works. It would be nice to list a few biographies. Needs more in text references (using footnotes). Voorlandt 07:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by SyG: conclusion was "Oppose"

Object for most of Voorlandt's reasons, and some other minor points below. This is already a great article with a lot of useful content, but it is not A-class status (which is near-perfection in my view). it is a pity that the "Early life" section does not indicate when Alekhine first learned chess. more generally, the details on his family are too scarce. I would appreciate dates of birth/death of his father/mother, the age of his mother when she gave him birth, the age difference between him and his brothers/sisters (I find it relevant because they have taught him to play). most sections are too compact. For example the "Early chess career" is roughly a list for the moment, so maybe we could organise it as a list ? maybe we should point out that the "Grandmaster of chess" title from the tsar was the first time this distinction was used ? there are sometimes some opinions, like "On December 15, 1935 Max Euwe fortunately had won". Why is it fortunate ? "narrowly" would sound more neutral to me. some citations are needed for assessments like "The loss is largely attributed to Alekhine's alcoholism". the "Contributions" section may be expanded. all quotations should be referenced. the "References" section does not seem to be sorted SyG 13:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion by SyG: A-class was failed
Close this review As noone has garnered here for one week to add something, this review is finished and the article has failed its test for A-class (2 negative opinions, 0 positive opinions). As it is still a very good article, I will change it to GA-class. SyG 10:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Review of Endgame tablebase

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Endgame tablebase. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by youngvalter
Currently assessed as A-Class by User:Ioannes Pragensis. I'd agree with this - although not promoted to FA, it seems all concerns were addressed, but people got bored with it after it was stayed as an FAC for six weeks. youngvalter 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by Voorlandt: conclusion was "Support"

Support, I think the article largely satisfies the criteria, there are however a few points where the article could be improved. Here is what peerreviewer had to say: (plus one comment from myself). The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?] Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?] As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?] Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: recognize (A) (British: recognise), isation (B) (American: ization), analyze (A) (British: analyse), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ). Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” Are the sections "play with God" and "nomenclature" really necessary? Maybe they could be incorporated in some other section.Voorlandt 07:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC) I think the material in those sections is OK. If Thompson had not used the "play chess with God" phrase, I'd rather call it an oracle or something. But I think it is OK as is. I think the nomenclature section is important to distinguish it from a simple database of endgames. But both of these sections are only one relatively short paragraph, so perhaps they could be incorporated into the main body. Bubba73 (talk), 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC) I've been struggling with where to put these sections since I wrote them. I think the nomenclature section should be relegated to the "notes" or "references" section - it is not really important, but I think I need to justify why we prefer one term over other terms that have been used. "Play chess with God" strikes me as a fine concluding section, the way I would conclude an essay on the topic. I prefer to leave it that way, but I could defend moving it to virtually any other section. A particularly bold idea would make it a "hook" in the lead section, fleshing out the significance of "perfect play" as introduced in the lead. Shalom Hello 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC) It would not make sense to put Nomenclature in Notes or References. I think it might be best to make Nomenclature the first section, to indicate to the reader that an endgame tablebase is not simply a database of endgames. It might could be called something else such as Terminology. Bubba73 (talk), 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by SyG: conclusion was "Oppose"

Oppose, because I basically have one problem with most sentences: the caption for the picture in the lead seems too long. Actually, most captions are too long in the article. If these captions are really adding value, they ought to be incorporated in the text. some words in British, others in American (however I do not see that as being really important) the sentence "Tablebases are generated by retrograde analysis, working backwards from a checkmated position" sounds obviously wrong, as tablebases also work backward from a stalemate position or from a drawn position. the sentence "Tablebases have solved chess for every position with six pieces or fewer" may precise that the "six pieces" include the Kings (may sound obvious to most, but not to me). in the sentence "The results of the solution have profoundly advanced the chess community's understanding of endgame theory", what solution are we talking about ? what is endgame theory ? (there is no link) in the sentence "Positions which humans had analyzed as draws were proven to be decided", what do you mean by "decided" ? (not defined anywhere). To me, a "draw" is a decision. the sentence "Tablebases have enhanced competitive play" sounds like an opinion. Any reference ? the sentence "They provide a powerful analytical tool, enabling students of chess to discover its deepest secrets", I don't know, somehow it just does not sound "encyclopedic", more something of a commercial add for a tablebase engine in the sentence "In principle, it is possible to solve any game under the condition that the complete state is known and there is no random chance" I could point out that maybe we should explain/define what a game with random chance is, but that seems too nitty-gritty. Probably even the average Joe will know that. in the sentence "Strong solutions are known for some simple games", why do you qualify the solution as "strong" ? What is a "strong solution" ? in the "Background" section, second paragraph, maybe we should mention the horizon effect to explain software's weaknesses in endgames ? all references should be wikified, e.g. "(Levy & Newborn 1991:25-38)" should be replaced by something like [63] (after the punctuation! ;-)) it would be cool to explain more in details the differences between Thompson tables, Nalimov tables, etc. the sentence "The stronger side can also win by capturing material, thus converting to a simpler endgame" should be rephrased as something like "The stronger side can also win by capturing material, thus converting to an endgame whose solution is known". Indeed, sometimes the computer goes to a much more complicated endgme (e.g. sacrificing pieces without reasons), just because it knows the solution of that last one. in the section "Step 1: Generating all possible positions" it should be made immediately clear that 40,000 is an approximation. the paragraph on the conflict between pawns and symmetry is very interesting, and should be referenced. in the section "Step 3: Verification", maybe we should point out that it is not a verification of thruth, but only of self-consistency. I mean, the whole tablebase could be completely wrong and still self-consistent, and then the verification program would not detect the errors, right ? the sentence "(However, castling is allowed by convention in composed problems and studies.)" should contain links to "composed problems" and to "studies". the caption for the picture in the section "Using a priori information" is long and does not really bring information relevant for the subject of "a priori information" in the section "Correspondence chess", I do not immediately see the link between the second paragraph and the title of the section. I mean, the 50-moves rule is applicable even in over-the-board games, in analysis session, in adjourned games, in computer chess, etc. So why should we mention it in the "Correspondence" section ? the section "Endgame theory" is too long if the main article is considered to be "Endgame#Effect of tablebases on endgame theory". I do not see any need to double the information in each article, so maybe we should put a very short section in one of the articles, and a very expanded one in the other. there is a dead link to "Harold van der Heijden" what is the purpose of the section "Play chess with God" ? It sounds trivia to me, and too short to be a section on its own All in all, this article is really great and has a lot of content and a good number of refereces, but I feel there is some "wikifying" to be done. Also, the lead seems fine for anyone who ALREADY knows the subject, but I think a newcomer would be confused by some sentences. SyG 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Articles should be consistent between American/British spelling I thought that retrograde analysis worked back only from won positions,since everything not reaching a won position is a drawn position. But someone more familiar with it than I am should see what is correct. Thanks for explaining that to me! If that is the case, then of course my mistake. Still, maybe we should explain this mechanism in the article. Also, how does it come with the thing that some 5 pieces vs 1 pieces are not evaluated (I have seen that in the Talk page of the article) because they are assumed to be always won ? SyG 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I wouldn't say that they have profoundly affected endgame theory, since only a few endgame evaluations were changed, and they were mostly rare ones or ones that take more than 50 moves. I changed "decided" to "decisive" and added "some". Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Hi Bubba, and thanks for your interest in my comments. That gave me faith to add more! (see hereupon) SyG 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Your points are good points. I think those changes could be made without objection, except that I thought that the retrograde analysis for the tablebases started with a checkmate or conversion to a known won position, not any drawn positions. Bubba73 (talk), 13:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC) SyG, those are a lot of good points, and it will take me some time to fix most of them. I'll respond quickly to one point: tablebases actually do not analyze backward from drawn positions. They only analyze won positions, and anything that's not a win is, by default, a draw. I mention this in the section on "generating tablebases", and I believe it is mentioned in at least two of the articles used as references (one each by Haworth and Krabbe). Thank you for the feedback. Shalom Hello 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion by SyG: A-class was failed

Close the review Given that: the minimum three-weeks period for review is over, no one has made any comment for the review since 10 August 2007, no one has made an edit to the endgame tablebase article since 9 August 2007, the article has not garnered enough support for A-class, and significant points have been raised, I shall close this review and grade the article as GA-class. The article seems close to A-class, as long as the points underlined hereupon are discussed/addressed. Of course, if you do not agree with my conclusion, I am always open to discussion. SyG 13:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Review of Paul Morphy

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Paul Morphy. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by youngvalter
Formerly assessed as A-Class by User:Ioannes Pragensis, but downgraded to B-Class by User:Triviaa. youngvalter 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by Voorlandt: conclusion was "Oppose"

Object (especially the lack of in text references). Here is what peerreviewer had to say: (plus one comment from myself). The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?] Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. correctly is considered might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] There is one 'citation needed' template on the page. Should be fixed or otherwise that line has to go. Needs more in text references (using footnotes). Voorlandt 07:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by SyG: conclusion was "Oppose", suggested for GA-class

Oppose for most of Voorlandt's reasons, and specifically some lack on precise references, for example: the Note 1 claims sentences like "Most historians consider..." and "Morphy is considered..." which are not referenced. the sentence "According to his uncle, Ernest Morphy, no one formally taught Morphy how to play chess" shall be referenced (maybe even the whole paragraph). the sentence "By the age of nine, he was considered one of the best players in New Orleans" shall be referenced. the sentence "Löwenthal and Anderssen both later remarked that..." should be referenced also, some links include redirects, it is better to do direct links the list of "Notable chess games" does not give any positionnal game, which seems in conflict with what is told in the section "Morphy's chess play" Still a very impressive article, that I would state as GA-class. SyG 08:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion by SyG: A-class failed
Close the review Given that: the minimum three-weeks period for review is over, no one has made any comment for the review since 18 August 2007, the article has not garnered enough support for A-class, and significant issues have been raised (mostly lack of references), I shall close this review and upgrade the article as GA-class. SyG 20:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Aborted reviews

Review of Adolf Anderssen

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Adolf Anderssen. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nomination by Philcha

Adolf Anderssen - as good as I can make it right now Philcha (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion by SyG

Unfortunately more than a year has passed now and noone has reviewed this article, so I am going to abort it for now. Of course anyone can reopen it if needed in the future. SyG (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

History of quality articles

Hereunder are the main steps undergone for the chess articles in a "quality process" (i.e. to reach GA-class or higher). For more details you can consult the "Article History" on the Talk page of each article.

• 02/03/2004: Paul Morphy listed for Peer review (see the original listing here)

• 02/03/2004: Paul Morphy candidate for FA-class at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul Morphy (see the nomination here)

• 08/03/2004: Paul Morphy reached FA-class (see the original pass here)

• 15/07/2004: Paul Morphy's peer review closed (see the original closing here)

• 26/08/2005: Paul Morphy nominated for FA-removal at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Paul Morphy (nomination here)

• 09/09/2005: Paul Morphy demoted from FA-class (see the original demotion here)

• 11/04/2006: Paul Morphy listed for Peer review (see the original listing here)

• 27/04/2006: Paul Morphy's peer review closed (see the original closing here)

• 01/06/2006: Paul Morphy candidate for GA-class at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (see the original nomination here)

• 12/06/2006: Paul Morphy failed the GA-class (see the original delisting here)

• 06/02/2007: Endgame tablebase candidate for GA-class at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (see the original nomination here)

• 24/02/2007: Endgame tablebase failed the GA-class (see the original delisting here)

• 22/03/2007: Endgame tablebase candidate for FA-class at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Endgame tablebase/archive1

• 01/05/2007: Endgame tablebase candidate for GA-class at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (see the original nomination here)

• 05/05/2007: Endgame tablebase failed the FA-class at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Endgame tablebase/archive1

• 09/05/2007: Endgame tablebase reached the GA-class (see the original passing here)

• 02/08/2007: This page is created

• 03/08/2007: Endgame tablebase candidate for A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Endgame tablebase

• 03/08/2007: Paul Morphy candidate for A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Paul Morphy

• 03/08/2007: Alexander Alekhine candidate for A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Alexander Alekhine

• 03/08/2007: Bughouse Chess candidate for A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Bughouse Chess

• 22/08/2007: Alexander Alekhine failed the A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Alexander Alekhine

• 24/08/2007: Endgame tablebase failed the A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Endgame tablebase

• 24/08/2007: Bughouse Chess reached A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Bughouse Chess

• 26/08/2007: Bughouse Chess candidate for FA-class at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bughouse chess/archive1

• 03/09/2007: Bughouse Chess failed the FA-class at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bughouse chess/archive1

• 08/09/2007: Bughouse Chess listed for Peer review

• 24/09/2007: Bughouse Chess' peer review closed

• 12/09/2007: Paul Morphy failed the A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Paul Morphy

• 19/11/2007: Bughouse Chess candidate for GA-class at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (see the original nomination here)

• 08/12/2007: Bughouse Chess reached GA-class (see the original passing here)

• 21/02/2008: Chess World Cup 2007 candidate for A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Chess World Cup 2007

• 04/03/2008: Swindle (chess) candidate for A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Swindle (chess)

• 08/03/2008: Paul Morphy candidate for GA-class at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (see the original nomination here)

• 10/03/2008: Paul Morphy failed the GA-class (see the original delisting here)

• 11/03/2008: Chess World Cup 2007 failed the A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Chess World Cup 2007

• 18/03/2008: Swindle (chess) failed the A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Swindle (chess)

• 12/04/2008: Alexander Alekhine candidate for GA-class at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (see the nomination here)

• 12/04/2008: First-move advantage in chess candidate for A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/First-move advantage in chess

• 03/05/2008: First-move advantage in chess reached the A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/First-move advantage in chess

• 03/05/2008: First-move advantage in chess candidate for GA-class at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (see the nomination here)

• 19/05/2008: Alexander Alekhine's GA-review started

• 28/05/2008: Alexander Alekhine reached GA-class (see the original passing here)

• 06/06/2008: First-move advantage in chess's GA-review started here

• 16/06/2008: First-move advantage in chess reached GA-class here

• 17/06/2008: Howard Staunton candidate for A-class

• 17/06/2008: Adolf Anderssen candidate for A-class

• 21/06/2008: First-move advantage in chess candidate for FA-class here

• 27/06/2008: First-move advantage in chess reached FA-class

• 06/07/2008: Howard Staunton candidate for GA-class

• 24/07/2008: Howard Staunton failed A-class

• 14/08/2008: Howard Staunton got its GA-review started

• 25/08/2008: Howard Staunton reached GA-class

• 28/08/2008: Rules of chess candidate for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Rules of chess

• 13/09/2008: Rules of chess candidate for GA-class

• 30/09/2008: Rules of chess was considered good for GA-review by all the reviewers from the WikiProject Chess

• 14/10/2008: Rules of chess got its GA-review started

• 20/10/2008: Rules of chess reached GA-class

• 06/11/2008: Wilhelm Steinitz candidate for A-class

• 12/11/2008: George H. D. Gossip nominated for A-class

• 19/11/2008: Adolf Anderssen nominated for GA-class

• 19/11/2008: Wilhelm Steinitz nominated for GA-class

• 21/11/2008: Emanuel Lasker nominated for GA-class

• 07/12/2008: George H. D. Gossip nominated for GA-class

• 07/12/2008: Adolf Anderssen got its GA-review started

• 12/12/2008: Adolf Anderssen reached GA-class

• 15/12/2008: Wilhelm Steinitz got its GA-review started

• 21/12/2008: Emanuel Lasker got its GA-review started

• 28/12/2008: George H. D. Gossip reached A-class

• 29/12/2008: Wilhelm Steinitz reached GA-class

• 02/01/2009: George H. D. Gossip got its GA-review started

• 02/01/2009: George H. D. Gossip reached GA-class

• 02/01/2009: George H. D. Gossip nominated for FA-class

• 14/01/2009: George H. D. Gossip reached FA-class

• 25/01/2009: Emanuel Lasker reached GA-class

• 06/09/2009: Budapest Gambit nominated for A-class

• 13/09/2009: Adolf Anderssen's A-review aborted

• 17/09/2009: Budapest Gambit nominated for GA-class

• 17/09/2009: Budapest Gambit got its GA-review started

• 11/10/2009: Budapest Gambit reached GA-class

• 22/10/2009: Chess tournament nominated for GA-class

• 08/11/2009: Chess tournament failed GA-class

• 17/11/2009: En passant got its GA-review started

• 20/12/2009: En passant reached GA-class

• 06/03/2010: Ashot Nadanian reached A-class