Talk:Chess960

Removal of External links sub-section 2

I am removing sub section 2 of External links because it is not encyclopedic and is all about game website and chess program. Thanks! Forgot to put name (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That isn't doing spam cleanup. That's bringing in a nuke. Not all those links are iTunes, etc. And many chess articles EL to playsites. The ELs s/b reviewed for spam cleanup individually. And BTW, you quote policy at me, so why don't you pay a little attention to WP:BRD rather than your delete actions without discussion or consensus. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I made bold edit. The whole section consisted only of links to play sites. Play sites don't give any information. The link to play sites only promoted the site. I have restored two external links. If you have any problem please post here. Thanks! Forgot to put name (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Forgot, I've added back one online playsite, specifically from view it allows direct, free & easy 960 play against a computer. (No registration, no advertising, no promotion, no fees, no Email subscription list. The software seems impressively clean, for example to castle, to differentiate from an ambiguous king move, one moves the king on top of the castling rook. [Smart.] The chess icons are even a close match to the current WP chess icons!) I think this is useful as adjunct to the article, to be able to interact with a Chess960 program, a resource the article cannot provide.

I did look at all the other previous ELs too, and I agree many were problematical. (I'm not really sure about them all being against policy, however. Regarding the general argument that playsites "don't give any information", for one, I don't see that restriction at WP:EL, perhaps it is your own interpretation, as I don't see a summary point equal to that. Also, like nearly all the WP policies, they were not written with chess in mind, and sometimes the policy fits like square peg in round hole. [An example is "hide/show" feature on chess problems, and after an RfC the MoS was updated to allow specifically for "chess puzzles".] Last, there are some playsite ELs at Shogi, Draughts, and a link to Go servers at Go.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO point no 6. Its clearly telling not to link which requires registration to view the content. All the external links which I removed were against the policy. So I do not think what I did is wrong. It is doing spam cleanup. Forgot to put name (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, registration is a baddy. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead text re Shuffle

"Randomizing the main pieces had long been known as Shuffle Chess, but Chess960 introduced new rules that preserve full castling options in all starting positions" was changed to "Randomizing the main pieces has been known as Shuffle Chess. Chess960 introduced new rules that include castling options in all starting positions, resulting in 960 unique positions".

Several problems with those changes:

1. "Has been known as" suggests that it is no longer known as. That is incorrect.
2. "new rules that include castling options" suggests multiple new rules and that castling options is one of them (a new rule). That is misconstrued. (The introduction of king between rooks, preserved the existing rule for castling, it didn't create a new rule named "castling".)
3. "castling options in all starting positions" (removing "full") leaves open that some starting positions might offer only one castling option, not two (a-side and h-side).
4. "... known as Shuffle Chess. Chess960 introduced new rules ..." breaks the tie between Shuffle Chess and Chess960.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. But I think this article needs copy-edit because of the prose. Any suggestions? If yes then please post here. If you can't help, please let me improve the article. If you know so much about English why don't you improve the article? Forgot to put name (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad we agree. What part of the prose do you find deficient? (Not saying it's not, just need to be specific.) Re my willingness to help improve the article: huh? (Did u take a peek at my edit history on it?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already told in the lead that all its rules, pieces etc are similar to standard chess then it's obvious that Chess960 includes castling options. Where as of the bishops being placed on opposite sides squares, It is already mentioned in Rules. Forgot to put name (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your bold removal of content, and am going to revert it. The lead is a summary of the body, and the key components of Chess960 (there are only three) are bishops on opposite colors, king between rooks, and the fact that castling options are preserved. To state these key components are "irrelevant" to the character, notability, and nature of Chess960, or otherwise "assumed", is, IMO, plain wrong. You will need a consensus of editors for your bold deletion, you currently don't have that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I am redoing my edit because BRD is a essay and you did not specify reason for reverting my edits clearly. I have kept the key points in the lead too that the bishops start on opposite sides and whereas for the castling, it's assumed that castling options are preserved because already mentioned in lead that Chess960 includes rules of standard chess and castling is a rule of standard chess. I have added the fact that Chess960 includes castling options too. If you too agree with the change let's end the discussion here. Thanks Forgot to put name (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in edit warring with you. (You ignore WP:BRD, "because BRD is an essay"??) You've removed mention of Shuffle Chess from the lead. This is inconsistent with WP:LEAD: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points" - the mention of Shuffle Chess was part of establishing context for Chess960. Explaining the three simple components of Chess960 mentioned above, was part of summarizing the most important points, and you have removed two of those points (king between rooks, preservation of classic chess full castling options in all start positions). The third important point, you have ruined, by changing "bishops on opposite-color squares", to "bishops on opposite squares". (Which has damaged the text, by making it incorrect and confusing. This also suggests to me that you are not a chessplayer much, since chessplayers understand bishops on opposite-colored squares, and would never say or write "bishops on opposite squares".) I am giving up negotiating with you, because you do not ascribe to collaboration re WP strong guidelines like discussion & consensus, instead preferring to force your way with reverts and mischaracterizing my attempts to explain the defects of your changes as non-explanations. Regarding your objection to the word "maintain" in sentence about maintaining the character of classic chess, you are completely wrong. (The first two definitions of the word from my American Heritage Dictionary: "1. To carry on; continue. 2. To preserve or retain." So the word "maintain" was a perfectly satisfactory choice, by the editor who introduced it. And you are simply wrong by saying it is not.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

n/a

I've put in an edit request to the {{tl|N/A}] to wikilink to the wiktionary definition in case readers don't know what it means. NE Ent 13:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Forgot to put name 14:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or another on this, but would like to register my logic about it. The idea of wlink'ing the N/A cell entries is clever, but, with 6 defs at the Wiktionary, I'm not sure how much benefit to readers it would be. Also, "not available" is different meaning than "not applicable", and, I'm not sure which applies to the empty cells (perhaps they are all "not applicable", but, I don't know for sure w/o researching). I have no problem with the ambiguity of N/A, only because, the previous cell fill, "-", was ambiguous as well. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If it needs a link to be understood, it should be explained instead in the article. Normally I'd say a caption could be used, but the cells in that table are very wide so there's no reason to use an abbreviation. If those championships were not held, the cells should say something like "no contest held" instead of N/A. Quale (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you. Let's see Ihardlythinkso agrees or no. — Forgot to put name (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is one of the reasons I had opposed replacing "-" by "N/A". (Because "N/A" carries meaning; "-" does not.) I'm not sure what the facts are regarding those events, the research is doable but isn't also a triviality. I know incorrect info can be later corrected no big deal, but I for one am uncomfortable laying down info that might be misleading. My guess is "not applicable" (no tournament held) applies in all cases, but my guess is worth less than a cup of coffee here. (The conflict that erupted out of rush to fill the cells, put me out of mood for any research to confirm. Sorry.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If no championship, Woman Chess960 Championship or computer championship was held in that year then obviously that cell is not applicable. However, as you have mentioned, the research on the championships is doable. If that's misleading, then let's replace the table cells with {{n/a}} for now. Whenever we unveil new information, let's remove the N/A from the table and fill it with the necessary information. This source may be helpful for World Chess 960 championships (Don't know whether it's reliable or not, maybe useful, found by searching in Google. You are more experienced than me, you can decide whether it is or no). World Chess 960 Championships columns and rows are replaceable but the Women Chess 960 Championship and Computer chess 960 columns probably cannot be replaced (Probably can be replaced, but will have to do another research for the same). — Forgot to put name (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso is right. If we don't know whether a contest was held or not, then N/A is absolutely not appropriate and in fact misleading and incorrect. The appropriate treatment would be to either leave those cells blank or perhaps use ? to indicate that we haven't determined the facts. "Not available" would also not be correct because we haven't determined that the results are not available. We don't know the truth, so although the results are perhaps not known to us presently we haven't determined that they are not available in a global sense. n/a is wrong for this use. In addition to all this, in my experience "n/a" most often is used to indicate "not applicable" rather than "not available", and although neither of these meanings is correct for this situation the first meaning is an even worse fit than the second. Quale (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. And my pref would be blank cells. (As an aside, the American Heritage Dictionary 4th ed. gives "not applicable" as the sole def; "not available" isn't given.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as an aside: I think I originally put that table there in 2009, and as far as I could determine it was complete. Also, the German wikipedia has an article dedicated to the WC chess 960 and seems to agree there [1](which is good news, as I would imagine they have access to better sources, since these tournaments were played in Mainz). --Voorlandt (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to go with German Wikipedia. German Wikipedia too says that no championship was held in 2002. So I think N/A would be most appropriate even if its sole definition is not applicable. I forgot a point, the Oxford English Dictionary (One of the most reliable dictionaries) gives Not applicable and Not available as the definition. — Forgot to put name (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not a good idea: another wiki does not satisfy WP:RS (what if they were copying this article!?), and it is obvious that all this discussion over "n/a" means those letters are no help to a reader. If there is no good reason to believe we know the status of a particular entry, it would be better to omit any label. Even using "unknown" is problematic because that would suggest to a reader that no one knows the status (not just that the current editors have no idea). If the row in the table must be kept, a blank entry seems the only sensible procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Here, consensus appears to say that the table rows should be left blank. So I would prefer to go with consensus. — Forgot to put name (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Castling rules

"An initial position of kings and rooks where a Queen-side castle for White and a King-side castle for Black will do nothing." Looks like that black king-side statement is not right. I guess it must be 5rkr for the eight rank instead of 1rkr4 as it is now for king-side castle to do nothing. I'll edit it like this now, hope it is correct. Ketorin (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh the whole example board got deleted, ok maybe better so. Ketorin (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I added it because chess.com has the error (i.e., in any game with that specific position, with a castle, the player will have 2 rooks on the same file), so I hoped that it would somehow help future people reading it (especially those writing software). It's fine that you removed it, but I think it's important for people to know (as it's an odd situation that arises during setup). I don't think my initial diagram was incorrect. It was meant to account for when a white or black castle will essentially do nothing (instead of erroneously putting 2 rooks on the same file). Esotericpig (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ketorin didn't remove it, I did. The artcle shouldn't contain text based on some esoteric s/w bug on some website (Chess.com). And the text "when a White or Black castle will essentially do nothing" was misleading since it is mistaken (all Chess960 castles "do something"). Ok, IHTS (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. However, from the Wikipedia text, "In some starting positions, the king or rook (but not both) do not move during castling." Technically, it is a move, but also technically, nothing is done. It's essentially a null move. See how you didn't even know that there was a null move? A lot of people don't, and I just wanted to clarify it some more, just trying to help readers. Esotericpig (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops, that's the wrong quote. In fact, I can't find the original quote anymore as it has been removed (I'm sure in history & old edits). Anyway, it will be simpler to display, so I provided the original diagram below. "After a-side castling, the king finishes on the c-file (c1 for White, c8 for Black) and the a-side rook finishes on the d-file (d1 for White, d8 for Black). The move is notated 0-0-0 and is known as queenside castling in standard chess." In the below diagram, an a-side castle for white will move king on c1 to c1 and rook b1 on d1? No, this is a special case in which it will be notated as a move, but nothing will be done. b1 rook will not also be on d1 with the other rook. Like I said, it's technically a "move" but also technically does nothing. A null move. A special case in Chess960. Esotericpig (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No, there's no such thing as "null move" in 960. (In the diag you coded here, 0-0-0 is simply an impossible [illegal] move. It's not possible because d1 isn't vacant to relocate rook on b1 to d1. If you read the 960 rules again, you'll find it here: "all squares between the rook's initial and final squares (including the final square), must be vacant except for the king and castling rook.") Ok, IHTS (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see this link (http://www.mark-weeks.com/cfaa/chess960/c960strt.htm). Look at 946 (BRKRNBNQ) and 947 (BRKRNNQB) with XRKR! It's a completely valid starting position in Chess960! If not, then it should be Chess958! Vacancy rule deals with such things as RNBK where the N and B need to be gone. However, in the diagram below, it's assumed other pieces have left, except for the R and K. In 946 and 947, the castle would not do anything! This is why I added it to the wikipedia page because people are unaware of this. Esotericpig (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. In 946 & 947, with all pieces gone except K & Rs, White cannot play 0-0-0, since d1 is occupied. (After the d1-R moves, then 0-0-0 is possible. When you say 0-0-0 "would not do anything", that's wrong, 0-0-0 causes the b1-R to go to d1. And that is "doing something".) Did you read the rules text I copied above? That text contradicts your "Vacancy rule deals [only] with such things as RNBK where the N and B need to be gone." (For RNBKxxxx, yes, N & B need to be gone. But for xRKxxxxx, the d1-square must be vacant.) IHTS (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(This might help you ...) The rules text says "all squares between the rook's initial and final squares (including the final square), must be vacant except for the king and castling rook." OK, here is a starting pos where the R's final square is "vacant except for the king": xRxKxxxx (where x = vacant square). And here is one where the R's final square is "vacant except for the castling rook": xxxRKxxx.

The rules text quoted above is precise, but maybe not concise--perhaps its wordiness has confused you. (I didn't write that text, but it is precise.) IHTS (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense, but doesn't it go against the original way Fischer wanted to modify Chess960? In original Chess, I have the option to either castle king-side or queen-side when there are only Rooks and King on the back rank. But now, if I have this start position of 946 or 947, I have to move a rook. Are there official rules out there by FIDE or USCF that explain what to do here? If we are to be faithful to the original Chess setup, then castling must be allowed either way I would think. Instead, we now have to move a rook away in order to castle queen-side, and it's only for roughly 2 (maybe more?) initial setups. I think what you said should be explained in a new subsection of the castling rules. Like, in original chess, I have people argue about En Passant, and I have an official place I can point to and tell them that En Passant is a real move. Now if 946 or 947 arise, they may either try to do a null move, or they may force me to move a rook (if a null move is allowed). This seems like either a flaw or something that should be outlined in the rules specifically. If it is the case where the rook must move first, then I think a new subsection should be added to explain this. :) Esotericpig (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand this now, but you seem to still have some hang-up, and I don't really understand what it is (or why a subsec w/ be required). (Castling *is* permitted either KS or QS in 960. It is just that for 0-0-0, the K does not move in RxKxxxxx and xRKxxxxx setups. And for 0-0, the K does not move in xxxxxxKR setups. But they are still considered castling moves in 960, 0-0-0 and 0-0.)

Like the article says, the 960 rules are specified in the FIDE rules appendix.

To repeat, I don't see any outstanding issues (with exception perhaps the rules text could be made more concise to avoid misunderstandings like you had), and don't understand your hang-up. (Fischer's castling rules were simply designed: the K is always between the Rs; the castle end-positions are identical to standard chess; and no intervening or ending squares can be occupied, except by the K and castling R. Simple.)

In an earlier version of the article castling sec, there was some referenced text on "tips", including "move only the rook" in the setups we've been talking about here. Well, that subsec (tips) was removed (on March 1 by Ketorin [2], please read these "tips"). Perhaps that is what you are alluding to, for clearer understanding, of when castling involves moving only the R. (I dunno. But if so, perhaps those tips s/b restored to the article, or the ones that apply anyway, to satisfy what you're driving at!?) IHTS (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(You're welcome!) IHTS (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

"Castling suggestions" section is pretty vague also. I'd remove all but first paragraph. What is WNCA? Not much luck Googling it. Ketorin (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Playing online

I am removing the section "Playing online" because it is not encyclopedic and is obsolete since such information should be condensed and presented in the External Links section. Unihedro (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Confusing Text

Under History>Mainz Championships are two confusing things to me and would prefer someone brighter than me correct them (if correction is needed).

1. "Note: None of these championships not recognized by FIDE." Double-negative? Really? If all of the championships are recognized by FIDE then simply say, "All of these championships are recognized by FIDE." If none are, it should be corrected to something like, "None of these championships are recognized by FIDE."

2. In the subsec that begins 2006, this appears, "Étienne Bacrot won the Chess960 open tournament, earning him a title match against Aronian in 2007." But in the following subsec (year 2007) Aronian defends against Anand with no explanation as to what happen to the previously mentioned title defense—what happened to the Aronian-Bacrot championship game?

Musix4me (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chess960. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725031043/http://www.bobby-fischer.net/Peter-Leko-Biography.htm to http://www.bobby-fischer.net/Peter-Leko-Biography.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321024225/http://chess960.net/castling-in-chess480 to http://chess960.net/castling-in-chess480
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051122180126/http://www.bobby-fischer.net:80/bobby_fischer_sound_12.htm to http://www.bobby-fischer.net/bobby_fischer_sound_12.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Grandmaster quotes sec

Versus removal based on "not encyclopedic" [3], I feel the sec conveys value to the article seeing that Fischer's proposed modification to chess is radical and there are differing views from grandmasters on it. The sec obviously doesn't attempt to be comprehensive re views but rather show there are differing opinions, and present a balanced representation of them (including a more extensive justification/explanation from Fischer). Perhaps an intro sentence could/should be added to put the sec into this context, I dunno. --IHTS (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)  Done [4] --IHTS (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Quotes section

@Ihardlythinkso: Better to discuss here to allow input from other editors. For starters the quotes section is almost completely unsourced. That alone is grounds to excise most of it, as direct quotes are one of the cases that should definitely be sourced (refer WP:MOS#Attribution). In addtion, the quotes are WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I understand that it's limited to grandmasters, but that doesn't stop it from being indiscriminate. Why do we need such a large number of quotes and from these masters specifically? At most one or two major ones should be quoted. Fischer's own quotes aren't really helpful here since the point is to show the reception of the system and he's the designer/promoter. Finally, a subsection purely devoted to a list of quotations is a big no-no. That's what Wikiquote is for. It is expected on Wikipedia that quotations be presented by being integrated into the text. An article shouldn't just list off quotes, but contextualize them and organize them. This also has ramifications for copyright, as merely listing off quotes starts to enter the territory of plagiarism and doesn't meet fair use. This is what I meant by being nice and just tagging the section for being moved over to Wikiquote rather than outright removing it. Opencooper (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes the quotes are unsourced. But that can be fixed. (I added all the quotes. I can source them. So that isn't a reason to "nuke the section".) --IHTS (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The quotes are definitely not "indiscriminate", since I took the time/effort to select them individually w/ purpose. --IHTS (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

There are nine quotes by grandmasters other than Fischer, and two by Fischer. That's not "a large number of quotes". --IHTS (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Why quotes by "these grandmasters specifically"? When I selected them, I didn't target any grandmasters, w/ possible exception of having a quote by Kasparov, a Fischer antagonist, and one by Gligoric, an early Chess960 proponent. I found the rest in my book, so they were easily accessible by me w/o more research. "Why quotes by these grandmasters?" Their opinions together show breadth of considerations re Chess960, and, why *not* these grandmqasters? Again I wasn't looking for any particular grandmasters, save the two. --IHTS (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"At most one or two" grandmasters should be quoted? Doing that w/ deny the article the spectrum of thought re pros & cons & other considerations or views re Chess960. I included a sufficient number w/ varying angles of view to provide that spectrum. --IHTS (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Fischer's views aren't helpful"?! There's no where else in the article that expresses the heart of *why* Fischer invented his variant. And giving the reader from the horses mouth gives real & accurate understanding of the motivation & justification behind the birth of the variant. --IHTS (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

A list of quotes in an article is counter WP policy and belongs in Wikiquote? I'm not sure that's correct by policy. I think or suspect you are too focused on word "quote" ... I have no problem naming the section & subsection "Opinions of" or "Views of" or "Views on pros and cons" etc. etc. Banning the section based on the "radiating" word "quote" I think is short-sighted and will remove for only superficial reason value to the article. --IHTS (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"It is expected on Wikipedia that quotations be presented by being integrated into the text. An article shouldn't just list off quotes, but contextualize them and organize them." I can agree to that! (Why did I produce a list of quotes instead? I'm lazy. It was easier to do. I didn't have to write any enjoining text. I think I could do that. I think other editors could do that. Again, I think the views have value and no reason to kill them over my taking the easy route.) --IHTS (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Plagiarism"?! If I source the quotes w/ refs, and as long as they are quotations, I don't see how that c/ be. --IHTS (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add one comment, though ... I think all the quotes (the nine plus the two) were when Fischerandom/Chess960 was fairly new on the scene. Since then Chess960 has become more mainstream. So the "debate" (re pros & cons) re Chess960 is kind of obsolete by now (not really pertinent). (Fischer's comments are the exception, since they convey his motivation & purpose for inventing the variant, which will never change.) The quotes w/ more & more thru time become just an echo of early reception to Fischerandom. (I honestly didn't think of that when writing the section; it seemed to me at the time that acceptance was still a hotter issue.) --IHTS (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of sourcing, they'd still be inappropriate and wouldn't mitigate copyright issues (see WP:COPYQUOTE). They're quotes because they're literally only other people's words. It's indiscriminate because it's a laundry list of reactions. Our articles on films don't for example list what every single film critic has said about it. No, instead, they limit the list to major critics and those that have said something of substance and unique. They also contextualize the reception, for example by grouping criticism around how the acting, cinematography, etc was received (that's how to appropriately present angles). As it currently is, the article is just "a person said b; c person said d; e person said f". It's a lazy collection of quotes that forces the reader to read other people's words rather than the whole point of a tertiary source which is to summarize these sources. This is what I mean by integration and why the list format doesn't work here (there is most definitely a better location in the article for why he invented his variant). Ideally, there would be prose that paraphrases the general sentiment and quotes judiciously (there are certain places where the horses mouth is the best to go with, but it's not "every single sentence"). Editors are supposed to extract and summarize the viewpoints. While some things work better in list format, a list of quotes is never appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Wikiquote or Brainyquote or some other quote farm. Opencooper (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything at WP:COPYQUOTE that describe or w/ prohibit the existing quotes. --IHTS (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The quotes are a "laundry list"? Don't know what you mean. (Again, I selected these carefully, when I was done I decided that adding any additional, or taking away any, w/ hurt the spectrum of views presented. I even carefully chose their presentation order. Your "laudry list" means number? Again, only nine and two.) --IHTS (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Every single film critic". Again, I carefully selected the quotes, when I was done I felt adding more w/ be detrimental, subtracting any w/ be detrimental to the value of providing the spectrum of view response from grandmasters. (You keep pushing that I indescriminately put a random list together, I know that to be untrue, so a bit insulting.) --IHTS (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"No, instead, they limit the list to major critics and those that have said something of substance and unique." And that is exactly what I did also. --IHTS (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Contextualize the reception". I already said yes, a descriptive narrative rather than a list is fine & why I didn't originally do it (expediency). I think we're going in circles now you're coming back on things I've already answered. --IHTS (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"A a lazy collection of quotes that forces the reader to read other people's words rather than the whole point of a tertiary source which is to summarize these sources." When I composed the section, I saw nothing inherently evil about a list. Some readers may prefer or enjoy to get independent views straight from the grandmasters. Lazy yes, w/ the caveat that I carefully selected these quotes (have I written that three or four times by now?). I have no problem w/ a non-list presentation of the spectrum of grandmaster response/view/opinion of Fischer's variant. Again you're repeating your arguments I've aleady responded to. --IHTS (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"There is most definitely a better location in the article for why he invented his variant". I wouldn't disagree w/ that. (Again, no one was helping, the structure I made was out of expediency, I've never maintained Fischer's explanation of the rationale for his variant must be in a list form, in the "views" section, etc. You're arguing form or structure, and I never contended mine must stick or is/was anyway superior.) --IHTS (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Editors are supposed to extract and summarize the viewpoints." (And similar.) You're lecturing me re how to edit now, and again, I've conceded several things here, including never contending or maintaining my list form should stick or was/is the best way to present. But you should stop lecturing me about "Wikipedia" or I will begin to lecture you: NAMELY, that people (editors) add to articles. Other editors massage and edit it. An article evolves over time. There are many contributors. Ideally. But if you survey the edit history of *this* article, you will see that "numerous contributors" shaping & evolving the article isn't so active as other more popular articles. So for example there has been *no one* helping fashion or evolve the quote section, there has been *only me*, all by my lonesome. But! I have *you* to come here and try and pick me apart in numerous ways, lecturing me and chiding me. Why don't *you* do *your job* as editor as Wikipedia has designed it for evolving articles, and contribute your ideas to actual copyedit work, instead of scolding & complaining and threatening to "nuke" all the while explaining how "nice" you've been! Ok I'll stop now before I really dig into you. --IHTS (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to question your intent, but that's the end result. You obviously put a lot of time and effort into the quotes, but for the purposes of the article, they are indeed indiscriminate because they are in the context of a list of quotes. To compare it to another problem area in Wikipedia: a section entirely devoted to trivia would be quickly deleted, but if it's integrated properly, then it's no longer trivia. When I refer to editors, I'm not lecturing your specifically, but make it clear what is generally expected by guidelines (several of which I've linked). This isn't merely a stylistic question or I wouldn't care so much about it. It's contrary to our major guidelines. This isn't something that can be fixed with light copyediting. Putting it for example in a subsection titled "Reception" and prosifying it like "A said, B said" would still not alleviate the major problems I've pointed out. The fact that it's information expressed purely through the usage of quotations is why it has to go. I'm not some big bad wolf whose sole purpose is to take away your hard work: that's why I merely tagged it and left it for future work. But you objected to even that so here we are. I also told you how it would be properly done, so I'm not sure where you're coming from and taking my feedback as attacks. If you don't want to hear it from me, Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse:

• "Overuse happens when[:] the quotes dominate the ... section"
• "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style."
• "Quotes shouldn't replace plain, concise text. Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose."
• "Avoid stand-alone quote sections; use Wikiquote instead."

These are all points I've told you in my own words. Opencooper (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You aren't "trying to question [my] intent" but "that's the end result". !?!?!?! You're redundant & repeating yourself once more, I've already replied to each issue more than once. So I won't be responding further, there w/ be no end to it. You're a complainer, and you dishonestly misrepresented what I've stated here. (E.g. at no time did I say "light copyediting", yet you put those words in my mouth then attack them. You've done the same re other of your issues, I believe that technique is called "straw man".) You're "not lecturing [me] specifically". !?!?!?! You love to lecture! Your "our major guidelines" is insulting in two ways (figure out for yourself how). You tagged the section for removal from the article, yet you say "I'm not [...] purpose is to take away [...]." (Another reason you've been so irritating ... throughout you say things that you then immediately contradict, I c/ list several examples but won't take the time/effort.)

Your basis for flagging WP:NOTQUOTE was what I offered to discuss w/ you, to see if it really applies, as I couldn't see that it did. However upon entering discussion, you abandoned any mention of it, instead pouncing on numerous different complaints, presumably because you had no confidence in defending the original tag, I don't know. (It's beyond U-turning to discuss now.) Your pattern of redundant complaining while showing no evidence of hearing any response, and your ugly pattern of saying one thing then immediately conradicting or undermining what you just said, which I presumably am tasked to read as if there were no contradiction present, is too crazy-making for me to continue discussing w/ you directly. (There are no other contributors here, I haven't solicited outside opinions or templated this discussion for that purpose, even perhaps that w/ be appropriate. I'm just not motivated to do anything for you or this conflict. You've destroyed that. Even I continued to source every quote, to re-write the content in narrative form, and to integrate the quotes by Fischer elsewhere in the article, my instincts tell me you wouldn't be satisfied and continue nit-picking & lecturing. You never suggested that if I proceed to do, such reformation w/ be acceptable to you, while giving me cause to suspect the opposite based on the behavior patterns I've called out.) --IHTS (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As someone who's just come across this article, I basically agree with Opencooper above, this section is a bit of a quotefarm. If these quotes are to be kept in the article, every one of them should be sourced, or they could be entirely made up. (The last quote by Fischer is sourced, but the length of it means it borders on being a copyright violation.) Robofish (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Will be sourcing. (Net waste of my time, however, if sec is "nuked".) --IHTS (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done} --IHTS (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Re "farm", the quotes were selected from much larger quote world as representative by Gligoric in his very short book. (Then further trimmed by me as editor.) Even a farmer plans his crops. --IHTS (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Re long Fischer quote, maybe I can learn something ... Do you know who's owner of copyright in this case? (Seirawan? Fischer's estate? The quote occurred in a public press conference, attended & reported by many journalists, also recorded on flim.) Ok, --IHTS (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

how's my wikiquote please? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess Thewriter006 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Move of page (Fischer Random Chess or Chess960)

Instruktorek moved page Fischer Random Chess to Chess960 with the comment: “more correct name, in oficial FIDE Handbook is Chess960”. I don’t think it’s accurate to claim that chess960 is “more correct in oficial FIDE Handbook”. The current handbook mentions only Fischer Random. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the move for now. Might also be worth checking out the discussion at Talk:Three-man chess on the capitalization of chess. SnowFire (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually User:Instruktorek is right: FIDE Laws of Chess (in effect from 1 January 2018) call the game Chess960, not Fischer Random. Sophia91 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Also I'd like to point out that the page was moved to "Fischer Random Chess" after technical request by another user without discussion on talk page. Sophia91 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter though. FIDE rules could call it Zucchini Coronet Chess. WP:COMMONNAME has changed a lot, and the 2019 tournament that Wesley So just won used "Fischer Random Chess" and attracted a ton of coverage under that name, probably more coverage than all the previous coverage combined. SnowFire (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

More important is official FIDE Handbook than comercial name of tournament who win Wesley So. For example in de wiki is Chess960. Correct name is Chess960. Instruktorek (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems to depend on where you go on the internet. I went on fide.com/fide/handbook where the only mention is Fischer Random. Either way I don’t think anyone can really claim that FIDE indicates that one or the other is "more correct". GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

In FIDE Handbook is Chess960 [5] PS We don't speak about name of tournament but about variant of chess.Instruktorek (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Your argument is doubly incorrect. Sorry, but on Wikipedia, we go by the commonly recognizable name, not the official name. But as GumsGrammaticus has pointed out, FIDE's official tournament used [6] Fischer Random, so even if you want to fall back on official names only and say FIDE gets to name the variant not the creator, this doesn't work. (Not contesting that older handbooks used Chess960, just saying the name has clearly changed in popularity/officialness since then.) . 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Just fyi, the current handbook also uses Chess960, under laws of chess, it's just that the new site sucks and doesn't have specifc links for every subsection of the handbook, that's why both me and Instruktorek linked to old.fide. Sophia91 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This may be pointless since the style crew voted and the chess crew didn't, but note that this was moved to a lowercase name per the big chess move. From my view of the sources, this wasn't merited, but I dunno if it's worth a separate RM since clearly people weren't buying what I was selling. @Dicklyon, Sophia91, GümsGrammatiçus, Instruktorek, and Anthony Appleyard:, thoughts? I chatted with Dicklyon on this specific variant at the Three-Man Chess RM, and while a lot of the variants there have incredibly spotty sources, this variant has good sources, and they all capitalize it recently. Even if Wikipedia somehow "influenced" this (which Dicklyon brought up at the RM, although that seems doubtful, since this variant was at Chess960 before), who cares? The name can change over time, and all the recent sources are capped for whatever reason. SnowFire (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"the style crew voted and the chess crew didn't" is an odd way to characterize the process of an RM discussion on a chess page; are you saying that the "chess crew" should/would vote to cap their own stuff? I don't really see an analysis of sources supporting this as a proper name, nor a trademark; like most other chess variants that way. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I think that the title of this article should be capitalized as: Fischer Random Chess. It’s a proper noun, because it’s a noun that identifies a single entity (like Rolling Stones, London or Jupiter). It is not a common noun, which is a noun that refers to class of entities (city, cat, chess). In modern English orthography, proper names are normally capitalized — as Fischer Random Chess is styled almost invariably in books and magazines. I thought the discussion regarding Three-man chess was a bungle. That discussion was too brief (it was open for only a month), it was shut down prematurely (it was active and on-going when it was ended), and it involved way too few editors (many or most making multiple comments). An editor (User:StraussInTheHouse — who is not an administrator) made the judgement to close the discussion (wrongly in my opinion) and made another judgement that there was a consensus to take extreme action: A big mass operation to alter a large number of titles wholesale. Mass editing in the face of plenty of thoughtful opposition — should probably never be done. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon: That RM didn't seem to attract chess editors, and instead attracted people like you & me who check WP:RM occasionally. I'm not saying that things would necessarily have turned out differently, but we don't really know since the subject-matter experts largely didn't show up.

@GümsGrammatiçus: I'm not really the one you need to convince here. If you think that this article should be moved back, file a WP:RM using the instructions there - although with the scanty response to my pings above, I wouldn't get your hopes too high. FWIW, I do think that even if chess variants in general end up lowercased, there is a solid usage argument that this particular variant should still be capitalized. SnowFire (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

As of this writing, on Google Search, "Chess960" returns 228,000 results, "Fischer random" returns 89,200 results and "Chess 960" returns 53,300 results. If we go by the commonly recognizable name, Chess960 is the clear winner based on this metric. This seems to be a good argument in support for the move to Chess960, although it's possible said metric does not reflect recent trend changes. 147.253.138.9 (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this statement correct in the article?

Article states, "For example, in some Fischer random chess starting positions White can attack an unprotected black pawn on the first move, whereas in standard chess it takes two moves for White to attack, . . . ." How can it be true to say, "WHITE CAN ATTACK AN UNPROTECTED PAWN ON THE FIRST MOVE"? Since all the pieces besides pawns are in the first row and blocked by pawns from moving (except the knights which can jump over pawns), how can white attack anything on first move? Knights can't reach blacks side on first move. A pawn might be advanced on first move allowing white to move out a bishop or queen to attack on 2nd move, but I can't see how 1st move attack would be possible. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC))

Moving a pawn may open a line, discovering an attack by a queen or bishop. This is in fact a problem that imbalances some starting positions and enables White to force opening play. (So, basically a special case of what Kramnik is quoted as saying in the article. Which is also why I sometimes think it would have been better to promote Capablanca chess as an extension of chess rather than this, but that's just my opinion.) Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"Chess 9LX" — just a trademark

I believe that the term Chess 9LX is not synonymous with the gamemode as a whole, but rather an explicit reference to the specific Saint Louis Chess Club event (which, incidentally, is being held at the time of writing.) A citation can be seen here: 2019 Champions Showdown: Chess 9LX. The page states: "Chess 9LX is a trademark of the Saint Louis Chess Club, and the name of one of its annual tournaments." This appears to refute the idea that "Chess 9LX" is a fundamental - or widely used - synonym for Fischer random. Unless anyone has objections to this, I will be removing the content that suggests the opposite.

(I was personally convinced that Chess 9LX was a synonym myself, for example as seen here, "The leader of Armenian chess, Levon Aronian, competed with the American Wesley So in the third round of the Chess 9LX—which is another term for Chess 960 or Fischer Random— tournament..." I understand the confusion, in light of that... but I believe I am right in this.)

Kiril kovachev (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

can be under the naming section? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess#Naming Thewriter006 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing quotes

There is a massive section in the article that I believe merits removal. There are too many quotes about players' opinions of the variant and no encyclopedic value to including all of them, especially in its own section. While having one or two small quotations within the rest of the article would be alright, having a dozen of opinions is excessive and in opposition to the summary-style we should follow on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixtal (talk • contribs) 09:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

pinging Thewriter006 — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree fundamentally. The variety of quotes by grandmasters are germane to the nature of the article topic itself. (The article topic is a proposed extension-replacement by the inventor to the classic chess game. Both the inventor himself, his invention, and his proposal, have had high controversy. But this has slowly changed since 1996, the introduction year, to current, with much acceptance by grandmasters and adoption by FIDE, the international chess governing body. The angles and insights by grandmasters have distinct bearing on the topic, they differ and sometimes differ subtly, and much would be lost if attempted to be summarized in edited prose. Thus the section of quotations and their relevance.) The blind application of WP protocol here w/ be not only inappropriate but destructive, too. Thanks for consideration. --IHTS (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

p.s. The composition of quotes has been dynamic too, reflecting evolving views; for example, the opinion by former world champion Kasparov that was initially a slight, has been changed to quotes of his particular approval. So the section is not an unending list of quotations. Nor an historical list. Nor, again, a repetitive list. Thanks for consider. --IHTS (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, I understand as a chess player the relevance of some of these players perspectives, but the way it is displayed is just a quote farm. To people that are unfamiliar with these players, the professional scene, or even chess at anything but a basic level the current quote section does them a disservice. We are not explaining the context of why some players enjoy its non opening-based way of playing, for example. Right now the section takes two full screens to read. It is way beyond what would be a beneficial length that increases our readers' understanding of how professional chess players view this variant. As I mentioned in my edit summary when removing it, the quotes as they stand right now provide seemingly trivial opinions that are of interest only to a small population of 960 fans rather than a general reading population. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_endgame#Quotations ?

2 - 'the way it is displayed' --> Ah ok so if you have an issue with the way it is displayed then why not bring it up on talk page or change the way it is displayed? I'm new to Wikipedia, but I think that's better than just REMOVING A WHOLE STACK of quotes that people worked hard to compile. To me doing that would make you in an extremely small minority and then you'd be going against yeah an overwhelming majority so why just remove the quotes without 1st bringing up on talk page? It was a huge waste of time for me to have to undo BOTH edits.

3 - Re the 'general reading population', who but chess or 9LX fans would be reading the 9LX wikipedia page? Sure non-chess and non-9LX fans would be reading the chess page. But I think you'd gotta have some level of interest in chess to bother looking up the 9LX page. Edit: Ah wait...I guess it wouldn't be suited for a general reading population, but it should be suited to a general chess reading population, not just general chess960 reading population. In your opinion, is it suited at least a general chess reading population even if not a general reading population? Also I don't think it has to be general reading population. Should the Borel-Cantelli Lemma page be accessible to a general reading population? (And if so, then...is it?)

4 - 'the section takes two full screens to read. It is way beyond what would be a beneficial length' - How do you know Gasai it is beyond beneficial length?

5 - Also if it is lengthy then why does non-lengthy imply DELETION FO THE ENTIRE THING rather than just deleting some quotes or perhaps creating some subsections?

FYI Btw while I regularly check the revision history of this page, the reason I found out about this HUGE EDIT is that I was searching for that quote by Péter Lékó about sleeping well. It's what a lot of GMs and superGMs saying like Wesley So https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShtUqtUGYSY&t=78s and Matthias Blübaum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kshW8JgNOnI

Btw no offense or anything Ixtal, but how familiar are you with chess / 9LX ? Like what was your peak rapid rating on lichess, and what's your chess experience? https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/wm3enq/comment/ijxgq1b/

Response 1 of 2 - this response is to Ixtal Thewriter006 (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

My particular rating does not matter, Thewriter006, nor does yours or anyone's. For more detail on how non-academic experts (such as highly-ranked chess player) are expected to contribute during content discussions, see Help:Wikipedia_editing_for_non-academic_experts#Giving_and_getting_feedback. For a wider perspective on the wider Wikipedia community's view of credentials, see Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials. Full response to you and IHTS's arguments will be posted later, but I thought this in particular needed addressing. I also would appreciate if you didn't link reddit threads. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It was a guide sub-question. The main question is 'how familiar are you with chess / 9LX?' Thewriter006 (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ixtal, to be honest, am not particularly stuck on the list format here, it's just that, as much as I love English and improving my writing, I don't think am capable of reformatting or reducing to summarized prose without also destroying the content inherent in the quotes, including, at this point, throwing out some and leaving in others. (Other editors, thankfully, have shown to be pretty adept at new quote selection and old quote removal.) Re your posture to service all readers even those w/ basic level of chess, um, readers access articles for different reasons, for e.g. to get a general understanding, or for details. And a reader doesn't need to be "familiar with these players" to appreciate the value of the quotes, "grandmaster" titles conveys sufficiently to them. And I take umbrage w/ your "trivial opinions" remark, the reality is, the views including acceptance and even preference for 960 by grandmasters is what is and will determine the future and ultimate place in history for [this variant of] Western chess. --IHTS (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Another point, WP articles are supposed to be interesting & enjoyable to read. Stripping out the "Views of grandmasters" sec, as you did, results in a chokingly dry technical article of no human interest, except to fans, which you wanted to avoid. --IHTS (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The 1 thing I'd think we need editing here is arrangement like it is the future (aka positive statement eg levon and wesley think it will be) vs it should be the future (aka normative statement eg wesley wants 9LX to replace chess) vs maybe it is the future (eg vidit is not sure) vs merely complimenting it (eg hikaru likes it but doesn't necessarily think 9LX should replace chess). Also wow really God bless you IHTS! Hope to see you maybe in r/chess960 ! :D

P.S. Re 'Thanks for consider.' --> You're really sticking to AGF here? Well I hope so far I've been trying, but well...I guess you can be negligent and still have good faith. Idk.

Response 2 of 2 - this response is to IHTS Thewriter006 (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a really a constructive idea. Involves close interpretation of the quotes, but that probably isn't too hard or out of bounds. --IHTS (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you both stuck to a more concise format for replies, see please the recommendations at Wikipedia:Hold the pepper. You can also use {{tq}} to distinguish quotes of other users, e.g. {{tq|That's a really constructive idea}} becomes That's a really constructive idea. This will help readability. I will now reply to your points one by one.

1. The link to Chess endgame has no bearing over this article's content. I similarly think the use of quotations there is unnecessary and encyclopedic, but that is irrelevant to this particular article.
2. I apologize if I seemed passive-aggressive by deleting the section. Thewriter006 and I have discussed this on their talk page.
3. In your opinion, is it suited at least a general chess reading population even if not a general reading population? Also I don't think it has to be general reading population. Should the Borel-Cantelli Lemma page be accessible to a general reading population? (And if so, then...is it?) I think this article should be suited at minimum to a general chess reading population, yes. However, we should strive to make it as understandable for general readers with little knowledge of chess as possible. Note I do not mean the target audience is an average layman, but rather that if one happens to find this article they should not feel intimidated by the contents. The article is still somewhat too technical in areas where we can clarify it, but that can be discussed at a later point as we continue to improve this article. Regarding the Borel-Cantelli Lemma, I do believe that the article should be accessible to a general reading population to the extent where even if they don't fully understand the mathematics they can understand why the lemma is useful and what it is used for.
4. How do you know Gasai it is beyond beneficial length? I do not understand what Gasai means here, Thewriter006.
5. Also if it is lengthy then why does non-lengthy imply DELETION FO THE ENTIRE THING rather than just deleting some quotes or perhaps creating some subsections? More subsections will probably worsen readability and do not change the fact that the quotes are individually undue for inclusion. That is, do any RS tell us these quotes are of encyclopedic value? Lets see some good practices on using quotes. In Pelé, it says "Among his contemporaries, Dutch star Johan Cruyff stated, "Pelé was the only footballer who surpassed the boundaries of logic." This quote is cited to a FIFA article about what contemporary players said about Pelé, telling us that it is a notable quote about him. The first quote in this article, however, is just cited to a random interview to Carlsen. Do any RS tell us this is a notable quote? Or are we just including it because a GM said it? We currently are doing the later, which is original research as we are determining what is and what is not a notable quote.
6. The main question is 'how familiar are you with chess / 9LX?' Enough to where I can contribute to content discussions on its Wikipedia article.
7. [...] it's just that, as much as I love English and improving my writing, I don't think am capable of reformatting or reducing to summarized prose without also destroying the content inherent in the quotes. Not all the quotes are needed, as many say the same thing but by different people. The best way to preserve the content of the quotes would be to summarize them within prose. For example, instead of having a "views of grandmasters" section, we could have a "Reception" section (see Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections for good practices on this). Sentences like "A number of grandmasters have praised the increased emphasis on intuition and creativity as opposed to the opening-centric and engine-reliant nature of modern competitive chess." This is a much more concise sentence that explains to our reader (of all expertise levels) what the thoughts of the GMs are.
8. And I take umbrage w/ your "trivial opinions" remark I want to clarify I do not believe they are trivial, but as there are no RS saying each quote is notable, they seem to be.

   Grandmasters are subject experts, their opinions don't need secondary sources. --IHTS (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

9. Stripping out the "Views of grandmasters" sec, as you did, results in a chokingly dry technical article of no human interest I heavily disagree.
10. The 1 thing I'd think we need editing here is arrangement like it is the future (aka positive statement eg levon and wesley think it will be) vs it should be the future (aka normative statement eg wesley wants 9LX to replace chess) vs maybe it is the future (eg vidit is not sure) That is synthesis. In other words, (pasting from the OR guideline) Combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source, which is against Wikipedia guidelines.

— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

1 - To me it seems like they're wrong if and only if we're wrong. So why are you editing only our page? Lol. It's like whatchamacallit SLAPP by the RIAA to Joel Tenenbaum or Jammie Thomas?

2 - Not passive-aggressive just sounds like 'I know better either from my chess experience or my wikipedia experience'. Thus, I really wanted to know about the Wikipedia experience. So like ok you clarified it.

3 - Soooo IS IT suited to a general chess reading population even if not a general reading population?

4 - Gasai refers to the anime character 'Yuno Gasai' (Yuno sounds like 'you know')

5 - Ugh...what? I wanna know what warranted the deletion of the entire thing rather than just a few quotes?

6 - Tell us anyway please. Did you get into chess just after queen's gambit? Did you find out 9LX existed only this year? Thewriter006 (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

3. Right now? The article is accessible to an average chess player, but super hard to read for non-chess players. Even then, it has various issues making its readability worse such that even interested chess players will likely not read past the lead and setup sections. We can improve this.

5. Note I didn't say in my response "just a few quotes", but rather summarizing all of them.

6. I will not respond to questions about expertise that seek to gatekeep articles. You do not get to decide what goes into this article or dismiss valid arguments based on rating or experience, Thewriter006. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

3.1 - 'The article is accessible to an average chess player' - So what's the problem?

3.2 - 'but super hard to read for non-chess players.'

3.2A - Why is it super hard to read?

3.2B - Why would non-chess players be reading the 9LX page? Would non-mathematicians (and non-physicists, etc) be reading the Borel-Cantelli page? Thewriter006 (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

4 - Again, how do you know (Gasai) it is beyond beneficial length? Thewriter006 (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

1 - Wait do you or do you not have a problem with the quotes section in the chess endgame page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_endgame#Quotations Thewriter006 (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

6 - Ok about experience, it's about not just credibility but experience. Like so what if we're doing something wrong? Why don't you just focus on Wikipedia articles that you're really interested and experienced in? Were you under the assumption like 'Oh wow no one here really is so familiar with Wikipedia no matter how familiar they were with 9LX' ?

6.1 - I mean, plainly there is someone here highly experienced in both chess and Wikipedia, so what's your continued interest in this matter with the quotations?

6.2 - You don't have to answer about your experience, but your silence, much like chess, would speak for itself. Do you know Gasai what the joke in the previous sentence is? I'm curious to see how familiar you are with chess history / current events.

7 - Btw, something you can nitpick on if you want (assuming you have enough chess experience for this) : I did 'original research' sort of:

7.1 - In the 'Theory' section, I added the Sesse evals thing about 22.22% and 68%.

7.2 - In 'Observations' about castling, I added the chess870 thingy: Everything from 'Unlike in standard chess (...)' up to '(...) compared to the remaining 870 positions (Evaluation is 0.1790).' is all me. Not sure if simple maths counts as original research, but if so, then go ahead and nitpick. I was actually expecting someone to revert or edit it based on original research or something or lack of citation in the sense that they'd have to verify the computations for themselves. But well I guess it's just as ok as, Idk, adding some alternative simple proof of some simple maths theorem that strangely no one has written before. Thewriter006 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

10 - No offense but seriously? 'reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source,' like...

10.1 - What's wrong with filing the following as 'I like 9LX' ?

- 10.1A - "To me, mainly chess is art — that's why I like Fischer Random a lot; there is a lot of creativity." — Wesley So

- 10.1B - "It’s a game I really love (...)" — Levon Aronian

- 10.1C - "I think chess960 is great as it is simply pure intuition and understanding without theory or computers." — Hikaru Nakamura

10.2 - What's wrong with filing the following as 'I like 9LX more than chess' ?

- 10.2A - "My favorite form of chess is actually chess960. (...)" — Wesley So

- 10.2B - "Every chess player's dream" - Levon (not yet in the article. It was in a recent interview. If you're experienced enough, then I think you know Gasai where to find this interview)

- 10.2C - (what I wouldn't file is the above Hikaru quote.)

10.3 - What's wrong with filing the following as 'I think 9LX will replace chess' or '9LX is the future' (where '9LX' refers not to exactly to 9LX but to randomisation in general eg they may be playing chess870 instead of chess960 in the future?

- 10.3A - "(...)I see it as the future of chess." — Levon Aronian

- 10.3B - "With the advancement in computers, I predicted that maybe 50 years from now, there won't be anymore high-level professional chess. Thewriter006 (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It is clear we won't find agreement on this. I will file an RfC soon proposing changes to the section. Cheers — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 07:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I edited the quotes section. Thewriter006 (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

11 - btw, why again complete deletion instead of like moving to or proposing to move to wikiquotes or something? again...it's the BRD cunningham's law thing?

12 - wait what if no 1 was around to like correct you or something? Thewriter006 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, obviously I'm very late to this discussion. This is my first glance at the section full of quotes, and I'm not interested. Quite a few of them are like testimonials, i.e. some player has got his appearance fee for playing in a Chess960 tournament, and he's saying how great Chess960 is. Kramnik reinforces this when he says that some other masters have complained to him "in private" about Chess960 -- if they complain in public, they're passing up chances to earn a living. But even aside from the WP:PROMO angle, what use do I have for most of these quotes? Do we need a bunch of quotes in Chess? Compare with Pickleball, another relatively new sport that's a variant of old sports. Who would be interested in a bunch of quotes about it? Bruce leverett (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Re a bunch of quotes in Chess, chess isn't a radical new thing, or controversial, or a variant that is potential redirection of the trajectory of the base game. So the compare seems apples & oranges. Don't know enough re Pickleball (whether or not is a controversial potential redress of the base game). --IHTS (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Not quite apples and oranges. I think red apples and green apples. Or maybe 9LX is like pineapple on pizza: A red apple/The pizza is a well-established thing. And then green apples/pineapple on pizza are like the not so popular thing. Or something. Thewriter006 (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Started the sec based on Gligoric's 2002 book when FRC was fresher and quotes were purely & sincerely reflecting on the variant w/o the poison of money. Suspected poisoned quotes of course s/b removed. --IHTS (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah btw I notice some Gligoric's 2002 book quotes don't quite have years there. I just put them under before 2010. Thewriter006 (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair questions.

1 - Chess is already well-established. No need for those quotes. These quotes explain the need for 9LX. Pickleball isn't trying to change anything exactly, is it? 9LX is trying to fix a perceived problem in chess. Similarly, we wouldn't have quotes for anything like say softball for baseball I guess. If there's some guy named Phisher Ransom who thinks baseball has a problem, then they can make Phisher baseball and explain why and then there'll be pro baseball players explaining why they dis/agree. Here, there's a huge dichotomy. Grandmasters, particularly superGMs, wish they could play 9LX instead of chess. Levon acknowledges this too. 9LX is the 'chess player's chess'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2CjJa78c24&t=49s Yet chess is still the standard. Why? Apparently, club players/amateurs really like openings. See https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/22318/why-isnt-chess960-the-standard and https://www.reddit.com/comments/xjg3li/comment/ipb2t0u/?context=1

2 - Do you have an issue with the chess endgame quotes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_endgame#Quotations I think they exist for the same purpose like to explain to new players why they should study the endgame. Thewriter006 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure that Wikipedia is the place to explain the "need" for the new game. When someone types "Chess 960" in the search box, most likely they don't know what it is; at least, that is the kind of readership that most of Wikipedia is written for. Advanced topics like comparisons of game X with game Y are for more specialized articles, or not for Wiki at all.

But granting that there might be a need to explain the appeal of Chess 960 compared with chess, I would think that it should take about 2-3 sentences, each point being supported by an appropriate source, which may well involve one of the above quotes. This would be easier on readers than the bag of quotes itself. We are tertiary, so our job is to assess and distill these secondary sources.

Digression -- note that there was a transition from old chess to new chess in the late 1400's, which you can read about in Chess. New chess had the "mad queen" and a few other features, and it took the chess world by storm (relatively speaking) -- every place that it arrived, within about a generation people stopped playing the old chess and ever afterwards played the new chess. At least that's how I remember it from reading Murray. So chess is "well-established" now, but back then ...

Thanks for bringing the quote section of Chess endgame to my attention. I have managed to miss or ignore it in spite of putting my fingerprints all over the article. There is also a quotation subsection of the section about rook endgames. If the purpose of the larger quote section is just to explain the need for studying endgames, then it has the same problems as the quotation section here -- we should not just be throwing an undigested bunch of quotations at the reader. But I have to say, the quotation from Capablanca is well-known in its own right, and the joke "all rook endgames are drawn" is even better known. Wikipedia is where "chess canon" lives, and that includes both those quotations. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

FRC was introduced to "fix" chess (the memorization issue), to "save" chess, to be the new norm. That is the reason it exists at all, and going up against classical chess is a radical deal, so I can't see any article de-emphasizing same as accurate or even informative. --IHTS (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Rather than argue this point, I'll say that if you can write a succinct and concise summary, with the usual Wikipedia conventions about sourcing, then the question of where it "really belongs" will not be hard to answer, if it arises at all. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned, w/ not be able. --IHTS (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

IHTS, what do you mean exactly by 'I can't see any article de-emphasizing same as accurate or even informative' please ? Thewriter006 (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Reducing the GM quotes, per Ixtal to "one or two small quotations", or per Bruce to 2–3 sentences each w/ a ref possibly incorporating a quote, seems to me diluting and even obscuring the current status of FRC what it was intended to be & is currently evolving to be, a radical evolutionary change to the trajectory of the classic game. There's obviously some fascination along the way, and controversy too, and all of that w/ be missing from the article if either suggestion were adopted IMO. --IHTS (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Does 'w/' mean 'would' ? Thewriter006 (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Used 'w/' to = "with". (Sorry for confusion.) --IHTS (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

the 2nd w/ i think means would instead of with? 'all of that w/ be missing from the article' Thewriter006 (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Right, "with"/"would" depending on context. Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

anyhoo it looks like our side has finally won. cheers indeed. pleasure doing business with you. thank you, God bless you, and happy valentine's day! Thewriter006 (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

9LX (St Louis) results

Shall we mention the results of the Chess 9LX of St Louis for the past, what, 4 tournaments now? Thewriter006 (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Added now. Lemme know what you think. Thewriter006 (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

9LX results vs 9LX name - Should 'naming' be moved up, probably before 'history' ?

If we do talk about the 9LX results of St Louis, then I think they'd be under 'History'. However the name '9LX' comes in 'naming' which is after 'history' soooo...? Thewriter006 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Did. Lemme know what you think. Thewriter006 (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Views of grandmasters section

How should the views of the grandmasters be presented? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

how's my wikiquote please? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess Thewriter006 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Option 1: As is

Fischer's proposed "new chess" has elicited various comments from grandmasters. "I think in general the future of classical chess as it is now is a little bit dubious. I would love to see more Fischer [Random] Chess being played over-the-board in a classical format. That would be very interesting to me, because I feel that that particular format is pretty well suited to classical chess as basically you need a lot of time in order to be able to play the game even remotely decently. And you can see that in the way that Fischer [Random] Chess is being played now when it is played in a rapid format. The quality of the games isn't very high because we make such fundamental mistakes in the opening. We don't understand it nearly enough and I think that would increase a lot if we were given a classical time control there. So I would definitely hope for that." — Magnus Carlsen, November 2020 "Of course, if people do not want to do any work then it is better to start the game from a random position." — Garry Kasparov, December 2001 "Random chess lets me enjoy myself and get publicity for chess without having to disrupt my life for months of preparation." — Garry Kasparov, August 2018 "I think we're making theory or even making history because we're opening not even a new chapter but basically a new book on the game of chess. That's why I think all players are excited." — Garry Kasparov, September 2018 "To me, mainly chess is art — that's why I like Fischer Random a lot; there is a lot of creativity." — Wesley So, November 2019 "My favorite form of chess is actually chess960. Because there's not much theory, not much preparation, it's very original. With the traditional format, the engines are just getting super strong, and it feels like you have to memorize the first 20-25 moves just to get a game. Bobby Fischer once said that the problem with chess is that you get the same exact starting position over and over. These days, there's 10 million games in the database already, so it's very hard to create original play, while chess960 is really your brain against mine. After the first or second move, you're already thinking." — Wesley So, April 2019 "With the advancement in computers, I predicted that maybe 50 years from now, there won't be anymore high-level professional chess. You know. Like chess will be so well-analyzed. (Hikaru: So you think within 50 years, we'll have to, like, move to 960 or something?) Yeah I think so. Yeah I feel within 50 or 70 years professional chess playing won't be as big as it is now." — Wesley So, in a stream with Hikaru Nakamura, December 2021 "I have to say that I love Chess960! I like to be creative and I really enjoy the Chess960 events in Mainz." — Alexandra Kosteniuk, August 2010 "I don't see any drawbacks in Fischer Random chess. The only slight shortcoming is the start position, otherwise there are just advantages. That's why I support it in full. If all the chess professionals played Fischer Random, our game could have been much more popular." — Alexander Grischuk, March 2018 [translated from Russian] "Chess is already complicated enough." — Vassily Ivanchuk "It’s a game I really love and I see it as the future of chess." — Levon Aronian, July 2011 "I think chess960 is great as it is simply pure intuition and understanding without theory or computers." — Hikaru Nakamura, February 2014 "Personally, It is refreshing to watch the Chess960 match between Carlsen and Nakamura. As a chess player and a fan, this is an exciting change. Could this be the future?" — Vidit Gujrathi, February 2018 "No more theory means more creativity." — Artur Yusupov "... the play is much improved over traditional chess because you don't need to analyze or memorize any book openings. Therefore, your play becomes truly creative and real." — Svetozar Gligorić "Finally, one is no longer obliged to spend the whole night long troubling oneself with the next opponent's opening moves. The best preparation consists just of sleeping well!" — Péter Lékó "I tried many different starting positions and all these were somehow very unharmonious. And this is not surprising as in many of these positions there is immediate forced play: the pieces are placed so badly at the start that there is a need to improve their positions in one way only, which decreases the number of choices." — Vladimir Kramnik [translated from Russian] "Fischer Random is an interesting format, but it has its drawbacks. In particular, the nontraditional starting positions make it difficult for many amateurs to enjoy the game until more familiar positions are achieved. The same is true for world-class players, as many have confessed to me privately. Finally, it also seems to lack an aesthetic quality found in traditional chess, which makes it less appealing for both players and viewers, even if it does occasionally result in an exciting game." — Vladimir Kramnik "Both players have bad positions." — Helmut Pfleger, commentating on Lékó–Adams, Mainz 2001, game 4 "The changes in chess concern the perfection of computers and the breakthrough of high technology. Under this influence the game is losing its charm and reducing more and more the number of creative players. ... I am a great advocate of Fischer's idea of completely changing the rules of chess, of creating a practically new game. It is the only way out, because then there would be no previous experience on which a machine could be programmed, at least until this new chess itself becomes exhausted. Fischer is a genius and I believe that his project would save the game." — Ljubomir Ljubojević "In my opinion, we should start moving towards Chess960, just like we started to generate energy with renewable energy sources a while ago. If we start now, then by the time it reaches a crisis point, we will have a viable alternative ready." — Srinath Narayanan, August 2017 Comments by Fischer "Teach people to play new chess, right away. Why do you offer them a black and white television set, when there is a set in color?" — Fischer, in the only meeting with FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, responding to the latter advocating "step by step" changes mindful of the heritage of chess "I don't know when, but I think we are approaching that [the end of chess] very rapidly. I think we need a change in the rules of chess. For example, I think it would be a good idea to shuffle the first row of the pieces by computer ... and this way you will get rid of all the theory. One reason that computers are strong in chess is that they have access to enormous theory ... I think if you can turn off the computer's book, which I've done when I've played the computer, they are still rather weak, at least at the opening part of the game, so I think this would be a good improvement, and also just for humans. It is much better, I think, because chess is becoming more and more simply memorization, because the power of memorization is so tremendous in chess now. Theory is so advanced, it used to be theory to maybe 10 or 15 moves, 18 moves; now, theory is going to 30 moves, 40 moves. I think I saw one game in Informator, the Yugoslav chess publication, where they give an N [theoretical novelty] to a new move, and I recall this new move was around move 50. ... I think it is true, we are coming to the end of the history of chess with the present rules, but I don't say we have to do away with the present rules. I mean, people can still play, but I think it's time for those who want to start playing on new rules that I think are better." — Fischer (September 1, 1992) "I love chess, and I didn't invent Fischerandom chess to destroy chess. I invented Fischerandom chess to keep chess going. Because I consider the old chess is dying, it really is dead. A lot of people come up with other rules of chess-type games, with 10×8 boards, new pieces, and all kinds of things. I'm really not interested in that. I want to keep the old chess flavor. I want to keep the old chess game. But just making a change so the starting positions are mixed, so it's not degenerated down to memorization and prearrangement like it is today." — Fischer, Radio Interview, June 27, 1999 (see 2:18–3:03) [7] (also see here 39:04–39:49) [8]

Option 2: Summarized within the rest of the article.

Option 3: Summarized within a reception section (with a different name or as "views of grandmasters").

Option 4: They should not be presented.

Option 5: Rearranged under sections to distinguish what exactly their views are eg 'It is/is maybe/isn't the future' vs 'I dis/like 9LX' vs 'I like 9LX more than chess', etc. (proposed by Thewriter006)

— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Option 2. I believe this is the most encyclopedic option: more comments to follow. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  there's no 'as is' anymore because i edited the page just now. do you see the problem? Thewriter006 (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is why it is considered bad practice to edit sections that are under discussion during an RFC and also why I included the original section collapsed under the option (see the show button on the right), Thewriter006. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  The history of the sec is, basically, my add'n yrs ago based on Gligoric's 2002 book; a user demanded refs; refs were satisfied; and since then editors have added quotations and removed others. WP articles typically evolve incrementally, w/ progress leaps usually only when editors come along w/ sufficient qualification & vision & motivation & dedication to make them happen. (And that looks like theWriter006!) Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  awwww shucks thank you good sir/madame! Thewriter006 (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  WHAT HAPPENED TO THE QUOTES SECTION!?!?!?!??! @Ihardlythinkso @Ixtal How can @Quale possibly supersede all this!??!?!?! Thewriter006 (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  oh ok i see it now never mind. Thewriter006 (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support Options 1 / 5. After this RFC started, I already went ahead and implemented most of Option 5. Lol. So the 'as is' is for a previous revision. Thewriter006 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Option 3. A wall of quotes is not encyclopedic and makes it difficult for readers to get a quick sense of the general reception and competing views. As amusing as some of the quotes are, this is not the place for them—see WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." That said, a summary of the general reception and competing views is appropriate and merits its own section. It might be fine to retain a few of the most notable quotes. I'd also advocate changing the name to "Reception" to include media and popular reception, not only the views of grandmasters. Burritok (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Option 2. Summarize the quotes. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "Wikipedia articles are not : [...] Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons [...]. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote."--Cbigorgne (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Option 3. The quotes should be in prose rather than list form per WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Reception of Chess960 is fundamental to its existence and understanding its place in the chess universe, as it is an upstart alternative to the original game, so a separate Reception section would be very useful to have. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @Bzweebl:. What are you going to do about this? It's been more than a month. Your only edit to the article did not make it better, so what are you going to do now? Quale (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

how's my wikiquote please? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess Thewriter006 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Option 3 w/ caveat. A Reception sec is interesting & good & probably best, but there's a literal history re same, making it practically a subject all its own. (E.g. Kasparov's view seems to have flipped over time. See also Thewriter006's breakup of Views into 5-yr periods.) Would the sec represent current reception only? Or also evolution of same? p.s. Am bad at summaries so not a candiate editor for such a challenge. Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Option 4. But if I can't get consensus on that, I'd settle for options 2 or 3. The essential problem with the list of quotations is that, while the place of FRC in the firmament of chess variants was still in doubt when Gligoric wrote his book in 2002, it isn't any more. Ashley's comment sums it up nicely, and although he made that comment in 2022, it has been accurate for a number of years. Mad queen chess utterly supplanted the old chess within a generation wherever it was introduced (according to Murray); but for FRC, a generation has already passed, and FRC is still just a variant. A collection of quotations comparing FRC to "real" chess is not much more interesting than a collection of quotations comparing double bughouse with chess (or comparing Dr. Pepper with Coca-Cola).

It is not inappropriate, in an encyclopedia, to discuss the differences between FRC and chess, particularly some of the subtler ones, such as were brought up in Aronian's comments. The encyclopedic way to do that is to summarize the differences, using quotations where appropriate to clarify. Just laying out all the quotations chronologically has drawbacks that I shouldn't have to enumerate in this crowd, but I'll mention a couple: it is repetitive (how many comments just say "I love it!" or "It's more creative!"); it is not neutral (all the comments are by GM's -- what did Ashley say again?); it is hard for non-expert readers to understand (why does Aronian say that blitz spoils it?). That is why options 2 or 3 are better than options 1 and 5. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Re neutrality, GMs are subject experts of course, how would amateurs' views be incorporated, are there RSs for that beyond Ashley's personal observation? --IHTS (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Although I cited Ashley, I admit that his comment seems rather light-hearted, and I would hesitate to cite it in the article. It is also my impression that FRC has not caught on at my own less-exalted level (I have never seen a live game), but I wouldn't cite my own impression either.

I regard stronger players, especially GMs, as subject matter experts for many chess-related questions. But what can be the role of subject matter experts in judging the appeal of a variant of chess? Any chess player can judge whether a variant appeals to him or her. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The appeal (or not) for GMs is obviously re the trade-off between removal of the burden of openings preparation, versus piece harmony in the start position. That doesn't affect amateurs not doing high-level openings preparation, of cousre, so, there'd be no reason for 960 to appeal to them, and reason to disfavor considering a new castling rule. (But technically, amateurs already play 960 seeing that the classical start position is #518 w/ no chg in castling.) So it seems the only relevant views to consider for the article re neutrality w/ be those of competitors in high-level events (GMs). --IHTS (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Your assessment of the masters vs. amateurs position agrees with mine. I think that my use of the word "neutral" does not line up well with Wikipedia's use (WP:N), so I apologize for that; it is appropriate for the article to discuss the GM response to the game, as long as it is presented as just the GM response. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

As for IHTS' 'So it seems the only relevant views to consider for the article re neutrality w/ be those of competitors in high-level events (GMs).' yeah ok this does address Bruce leverett's 'It is also my impression that FRC has not caught on at my own less-exalted level (I have never seen a live game), but I wouldn't cite my own impression either.'

But...

I think this is objectively correct 'That doesn't affect amateurs not doing high-level openings preparation, of course, so, there'd be no reason for 960 to appeal to them' in the sense that whether it's chess or chess960 no one's overall score/rating or training time will be affected significantly for lower ratings, but there's the matter of subjective feeling. Some amateurs just hate the idea of making an error out of not studying or not being familiar with a particular openings rather than the idea of not training hard enough, even if the error doesn't affect their overall score/rating and doesn't require that much more time training (it's puzzles + openings instead of just puzzles. There's technically an opportunity cost, but I guess it's not that *objectively* high for amateurs).

Actually, most amateurs study openings because they want to not because they have to. So they'd probably like that kind of feeling (esp when they're on the giving, not receiving, end).

But yeah, the bottom line is really about what objectively matters. I just wanted to say something on the subjective aspect. Thewriter006 (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett, re 'variant': cc @IHTS

Re variant:

1 - I mean 9LX is clearly not merely any 'variant' in the way that crazyhouse, atomic, king of the hill, etc (and chess960 versions of those) are right? And definitely more so for shogi, xiangqi, etc (if you can consider those 'variants' of chess) https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/33843/the-chess960-analogue-in-shogi-xiangqi-etc right? Every chess player is automatically a 9LX player and vice-versa. Magnus & Wesley So aren't automatically superGMs in crazyhouse and definitely aren't in shogi or xiangqi, but they are automatically superGMs in 9LX even if Magnus sucks at 9LX (eg Link 1 and Link 2 and Magnus is a talentless patzer who crumbles without opening prep - Link 3 and Link 4). There are no 9LX-specific puzzles or courses (yes, that includes Wesley So's 9LX chessable course) that will really make people significantly better 9LX players if their 9LX opponents for some reason do not solve those kinds of puzzles or watch those kinds of courses.

2 - Note that the quotes on 9LX apply not only to 9LX. They apply also to chess870, chess90, chess18, chess324 (aka double chess18), etc, to double 9LX, double chess870, double chess90, etc. What they're actually talking about is 'chess-without-openings', which I guess is really chess but with a variation that merely randomises the starting position. 9LX is merely 1 way to do it.

2.1 - If you want, then you can say even that 9LX adds something extra re its castling confusion re some setups of the kings and rooks. Others advocate for chess324 so castling is the same. I advocate for chess870, where castling is still more like 9LX than in chess but at least eliminates the inability to bluff in those 90 positions in 9LX (that make up chess90). But I don't think castling is really that big a deal if you do play a lot.

3 - Finally to answer directly your question 'I regard stronger players, especially GMs, as subject matter experts for many chess-related questions. But what can be the role of subject matter experts in judging the appeal of a variant of chess?':

Combining (1) and (2), Magnus & Wesley So are automatically superGMs in all the variants I just mentioned I believe. Since they are superGMs (resp GMs), their expertise transfers. Magnus & Wesley So are not expected to be experts in crazyhouse or xiangqi, but why wouldn't they be experts in 'chess-without-openings' ?

3.1 - This doesn't apply vice-versa I guess. I believe hypothetical superGMs in those variants will even be superGMs-except-for-openings in chess. Basically like if a GM / superGM came back from the dead and played chess today. I guess in this sense 'chess before' relative to 'chess now' is kinda like '9LX now' relative to 'chess now'. But anyway, yeah, they are not necessarily experts in chess. They'd be an expert on everything except possibly openings right?

4 - Actually question: Who would you consider an expert 'in judging the appeal of a variant of chess'?

P.S.1. There are of course variants similar to chess in the sense that a superGM of chess is a superGM of the variant or vice-versa eg queenless-starting chess (no queens at the start. However, pawns can promote to queens), choker/chessino, queenless-chess (no queens at the start AND pawns can't promote to queens) and maybe even torpedo pawn chess (pawns always have the option to move 2 squares. not sure about en passant in other ranks though), but these kinda throw away more than just opening theory. The purpose of 9LX or 'chess-without-openings' is really keep the game as close as possible but without openings.

P.S.2. Actually I kinda think if you want to remove both middlegames and openings, then you could play queenless-starting chess960 (chess960 but no queens at the start. However pawns can promote to queens. Maybe Magnus will win a WC this given how much Magnus sucks at middlegames apparently.) Thewriter006 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I really cannot hope to untangle all your logic above. I guess this is what they mean by "distended rambling".

Yes, 9LX is "just" a variant. This is not a bad thing. Unlike many chess variants, it has a serious following, strong tournaments sanctioned by FIDE, etc. I originally meant that because there isn't a movement for it to really replace chess, a list of quotations about its appeal is inherently uninteresting. Nobody has disagreed with me about that (so far).

As for "subject matter experts", what if Kosteniuk says, "I have to say that I love Chess960", and I say "I'm not interested in Chess960"? Does her opinion beat mine? She is a GM, I am just an amateur. But so what? Everyone gets to have an opinion. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

'Unlike many chess variants, it has a serious following, strong tournaments sanctioned by FIDE, etc.'

What for you is not 'just' a variant? When I say not 'just' I mean really 'it has a serious following, strong tournaments sanctioned by FIDE' among other things. Thewriter006 (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Clearly I don't want to start a fight with you over the meaning of "just". My use of that word was not important, and you can ignore it. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Your initial complaint was re the number of quotes [9], but reducing the number isn't represented in any of the options you've crafted. --IHTS (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ixtal ? Thewriter006 (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Old RFC

I see that Legobot removed the {{rfc}} template on October 24. That formally ended the RfC. Anyone could have formally restarted the RfC by restoring that template, but no one did. Meanwhile various people, including myself, decided it was time to add their own comments to the Survey. When User:Quale made his first attempt to delete the quote farm, the RfC was already one month past expiration, but another editor reverted it, commenting that there was an "ongoing RfC". I plead guilty to not having known how to behave during an RfC, and I'm not the only one. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

wut? Thewriter006 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:RfC. Warning: it's long. That's what I read before posting the above comment. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

References

How do I go about adding statistics?

I manually counted from lichess broadcasts of St Louis 9LX tournaments

https://lichess.org/broadcast/2022-champions-showdown-chess-9lx/round-1/01Kwg6mV

https://lichess.org/broadcast/2021-champions-showdown-chess-9lx/round-1/el8pB7eE

https://lichess.org/broadcast/2020-champions-showdown-chess-9lx-day-1/-/1ebBtKUq

https://lichess.org/broadcast/2020-champions-showdown-chess-9lx-day-2/-/o0PsYf8A

https://lichess.org/broadcast/2020-champions-showdown-chess-9lx-final-day/-/M0Mu94nQ

the win percentage, score, etc for white/black and the draw percentage. How do I put it here? I mean I just claim so and so are fact and then plug in the above as sources, but who's really gonna verify it for me?

Actually, I kinda did this for the chess870 and chess90 above, but they're easy to verify. You can just pull up google sheet / excel sheet. But then here you really have to manually count the white wins from each round and so on.

Update on 2022Sep29: https://imgur.com/a/566On7Z - takes just 15 minutes to verify all these.

Thewriter006 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't this WP:OR? Bruce leverett (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

for st louis? or for chess870?

1 - For chess870 it's easy to verify as I said.

2 - For chess 9LX, eh. idk can i create like a google sheet similar to the sesse evals and include the code so people can check for themselves? or still OR? idk much about original research thing of wikipedia but these are just calculations. if st louis didn't publish the relative rankings in the final standings (but still published total score...or hell if they for some reason didn't publish total score for all players like maybe just the top 3) then is it OR if i count myself to see what place they got? of course that's just arithmetic that takes 10 seconds to do while my spreadsheet proposition will take more like 15 minutes but still...idk it's just calculations...it's not like a posteriori 'earth revolves around the sun. trust me bro/sis/sib' or 'women do just as fine in chess as men based on a study i conducted. trust me bro/sis/sib.' it's really just a priori that you can really do it yourself to check.

2.1 - idea: can I post the statistics here and then get 2 other established wikipedia peeps say IHTS to verify and then claim the calculations look right and then after that we'll post it in the sub? Thewriter006 (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#i'm_n00b._what_of_the_case_of_simple_calculations_that_any_wikipedia_reader_can_verify_for_themselves? Thewriter006 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thewriter006, I believe our explanatory essay Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources would help you figure out what is and is not appropriate use of tournament results on the wiki to reach your own original statistical conclusions, which I imagine is the complaint Bruce leverett is raising above. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

where is the maths part there please? I mean surely if I said a player's rating is 1500 and then later 1600 it's not 'original research' to say the rating increased by around 7% right? It takes 10 seconds to calculate that. What if there's a calculation that takes 20 seconds? 900 seconds? Remember this 'research' or whatever is a priori, not a posteriori. Thewriter006 (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I see that the editors who have responded to you in the talk page of WP:OR are giving you good advice.

In a nutshell, if reliable sources haven't seen fit to do the calculations you're doing and publish the results, then the calculations and results don't belong in the encyclopedia. Our role as editors is not to evaluate 9LX, but to summarize evaluations that have appeared in reliable sources. If you're wondering why there aren't good examples that you could emulate elsewhere in Wiki, it's because what you're trying to do is not appropriate for Wiki. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Quote farm once again, with feeling

Several editors have expressed concern over the WP:QUOTEFARM in this article. Two editors have defended it, but in my view their defense has no grounding in policy or guidelines. The correct number of quotes to list in this article is zero. The correct number of quotes to use in the article might be zero, or it might be five, or nearly any other number, but those quotes must be in the article, in prose, not outside the article in a long list. I'm removing all the quotes and asking that they not be restored as a list. Editors who want the quotes in the article are invited to incorporate them into the article in prose and not as a list. It was tagged for excessive quotation in December 2021. Editors who want the quotes in the article have had plenty of time to incorporate them into prose and are invited to do so now, if they like, but this just can't stand any longer. If WP:QUOTEFARM has any meaning at all then it must not allow a list of 34 quotes fully unintegrated with the article as whole. Quale (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Just curious, you support quotes section in article First-move advantage in chess, is it because the number of quotes is less? Or? Also, has anyone pointed out where the sec violates policy or guideline (WP:QUOTEFARM is an essay)? I can see the arguement that a list of quotes isn't encyclopedic writing actually, but neither is a short list of three quotes. Respectfully, --IHTS (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak for Quale, but my appraisal of the article First-move advantage in chess is that it is full of non-encyclopedic stuff, and the quotes section is no more helpful in that article than in this one. At first I was going to say that the Bogoljubow quote was worth saving, but it's not, unless one can find a better reference for it. (The reference currently being used is Winter's inquiry as to whether the quotation was really correctly attributed to Bogoljubov. I don't know if Winter ever got any confirmation.) Bruce leverett (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually he was referring to my edit that restored the three quotes to First-move advantage, so I do think the quotes improve that article. I'll get back to that in a moment including why I don't think the use of quotes in the two articles is comparable, but first I have to say that I categorically disagree with the opinion that First-move advantage in chess is full of non-encyclopedic stuff. It's well researched and well sourced, and also well written. You are certainly not the only chess editor who seems to reflexively reject any encyclopedic writing that isn't dry and stiff, but I do not accept the idea that encyclopedic writing requires dull, colorless prose. In fact my writing in articles is much flatter than I would prefer, but I find it very difficult to produce livelier prose in the encyclopedic context. I treasure the work of others in the rare chess article that has that spark of life, and I think that first-move advantage is one of the best chess articles in Wikipedia.

Concerning the quotes in first-move advantage, there are only three, not 34. The quotes are at the end of the article where they don't stop the flow of the article dead. The quotes are all illustrative of themes covered in prose earlier in the article. They are in no way essential to the article, but they add a welcome splash of color. The Bogoljubow quote is widely known, and I think is noteworthy even if it is an invention. If the quotes need better sourcing, then we should fix that. (Of course if reliable sourcing can't be provided, they should be removed.) On this page the primary argument for the quote farm was that it was required to demonstrate that FRC is the future of chess, so the quotes were claimed to be essential. That's just wrong. If editors want to make the case that FRC is the future of chess (keeping in mind the prohibition against WP:OR), that must be done in prose. Quale (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No "case" was attempting to be made, rather presenting the diversity of GM views of a dynamic environment fairly & objectively (NPOV). That quotes stopped "the flow of the article" is the first time this argument has been raised, and easily fixed of course by moving the sec to bottom of article per first-move advantage. --IHTS (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

God bless you IHTS! Bobby Fischer would be so proud of you! Thewriter006 (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Who is Quale? Is Quale like a 'mod' or 'admin' ? Thewriter006 (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually it kinda is already at the end of the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Fischer_random_chess&oldid=1123691505#Critical_Comments

The thing after the quotations is the similar variants, which is like another topic. Thewriter006 (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

'The quotes are at the end of the article' --> Ok so let's put the quotations for 9LX at the end of the page! Good idea Quale! But if that was your issue, then why did you delete the quotes instead of move them to the end of the page? Seems kinda drastic. Thewriter006 (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

What's your opinion of the quotes in the endgame page? Thewriter006 (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What's your opinion of the quotes in the endgame page? Thewriter006 (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Good find, there are 8 quotes in the sec Chess endgame § Quotations. Would have thought is ok, but because of this discussion will leave to others re keep/delete consistency. --IHTS (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

thanks IHTS. I actually mentioned the endgame page before to Ixtal iirc. Thewriter006 (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

IHTS, how come Quale can supersede the RFC? Thewriter006 (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

What's your opinion of the quotes in the endgame page? Thewriter006 (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Also do you have any issue if we just move the stuff to wikiquote? Thewriter006 (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:PEPPER — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Lolwut? I checked it out. I still don't get it. Thewriter006 (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

1 - Why in the current revision are we including quotes only from neutral people namely traitors to 9LX like Vidit and Hikaru rather than players wholly committed to 9LX such as its creator Bobby Fischer and its inaugural and current WC Wesley So (Hikaru is only the rapid WC. Magnus was never the WC), Maurice Ashley, Levon Aronian, Eugene Torre, Garry Kasparov, Magnus Carlsen (the fake WC), et al?

1.1 - In this regard, why is Vidit's anti - 9LX comment not included?

1.2 - Why are quotes by THE ACTUAL CREATOR BOBBY FISCHER excluded?

2 - How do you propose that the public be educated that while amateurs prefer chess to 9LX, it's top players mainly who prefer 9LX to chess?

https://twitter.com/MauriceAshley/status/1571144158143983616

https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/22318/why-isnt-chess960-the-standard

3 - Are you aware that this current statement is a lie 'However, the current top players do not favor the game as clearly as Fischer had imagined' ? Vidit and Hikaru are traitors. Focus on Bobby, Wesley, Levon, Maurice, Eugene Torre, Garry, Magnus, et al. Also Srinath Narayanan, Nepo, Alexander Grischuk, Alexandra Kosteniuk. Thewriter006 (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

How come you can supersede the RFC? Are you like a wikipedia chess moderator or administrator or something? Thewriter006 (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thewriter006: I think putting the quotes in Wikiquote is a good idea regardless of what happens here. You can then put {{wikiquote}} at the top of the External links section and interested readers can follow the link to read all the quotes. As for the rest, if your intent is to encourage discussion and consideration of your point of view, I don't think distended rambling is a good strategy. I find your flippancy to be very off-putting. The effect is to derail any honest attempts that others are making to have a substantive discussion about the issues. People are going to avoid involving themselves in a discussion like this, and I think that's a very sensible and understandable decision. Quale (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

He's making a numbered list for each of his points. If anything, that's the opposite of "distended rambling." And though I understand your perspective, I don't think refusing to engage with the arguments by attacking someone's writing style is productive either. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He's made 10 or more edits to this talk section already and I fully stand by my characterization of that mess as "distended rambling" that is going to drive people away from participating in the discussion. I can say that it doesn't seem to have inspired you to provide anything useful on the substance of the question, you merely comment on the form while chastising me for the same. I've made what I think are productive contributions to this discussion. If you my opinions not productive, I'm OK with that. Quale (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I added my thoughts to the RFC, which is where this discussion should be taking place. I value your contributions as well as everyone else's and am happy to discuss the substance of the original question. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

What's your opinion of the 'However, the current top players do not favor the game as clearly as Fischer had imagined, some of them praising it and predicting it as the future of chess on the one hand, but also criticizing it on the other' which takes some quotes to 'FIDE World Championship' even when some of the quotes refer to neither of the 2 WC's specifically? Thewriter006 (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

What does 'If you my opinions not productive, I'm OK with that' mean please? Thewriter006 (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

How do I do wikiquote for this? Thewriter006 (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I completely stopped engaging, even with the RFC that I started, as it's just not worth it, Quale. It is not my job to dismantly every case of misguided ownership I find on the wiki. Letting the fans of this variant keep their article unencyclopedic will hurt the variant gaining popularity more than it will bother me. Improving other articles which might be in more need of experienced editor attention will help the wiki more in the end and stress us all less. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ixtal: I respect your efforts here, but I did not think that an RFC was likely to be productive. The history of disputes over the quote farm is sadly typical. It's been over five (!) years and nothing has been done.

• 9 December 2017: quote farm removed, but it was immediately reverted
• July 2019: #Quotes section discussion with 2 editors opposed to the quote farm, 1 persistent editor in favor. Quote farm remains in the article
• 22 September 2022: #Removing quotes another discussion. This time a couple chess editors harass an editor who expresses concern about the quote farm over his chess rating. One of the harassers is an experienced, long-time chess editor who absolutely should know better than this poor behavior since chess rating has nothing to do with whether a massive quotes section is appropriate for this article. Late in the discussion a third experienced chess editor expresses skepticism that the quotes improve the quality of the article.
• 24 September 2022: an RFC is created about the Views of grandmasters section.
• 27 November 2022: at this point 2 editors are in favor of the quotes section as is, and 3 said that it should be integrated into article prose or removed. No one had commented on the RFC in over a month (since 23 October) and the quote farm had swollen to 34 (!) entries. I removed the quote farm with the comment that editors could integrate the information into the article as prose if they chose. In a depressingly predictable development, a drive-by editor reverted to restore the quote farm.
• 28 Nov - 1 Dec 2022: two more editors comment on the RFC, both are opposed to leaving the quote farm in the article. This leaves the total at 2 in favor of the quote farm, 5 against. (Or 6 against if you include Quale who did not comment but tried to excise the quote farm from the article.)
• 8 January 2023: The RFC is over 15 weeks old at this point with no new comments since 1 December. Predictably nothing has changed in the article.

Quale (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Plz note my support in November for Option 3 (Reception sec) above. Also, you clearly heavily lament the existence of a list of quotations; however, not to poke, you yourself added to same here. Clearly you had a chg of heart at some point since then that went unannounced/unexplained!? Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

'nothing has been done.' --> What do you mean? I did a lot by adding a lot of quotes. Thewriter006 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

'hurt the variant gaining popularity' --> Why? As pointed out at the start, you had edited chess / 9LX articles much less compared to some others, virtually none iirc. So how come you know Gasai better than the others? Thewriter006 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether masters do not want a “new” chess just because they criticise Fischer Random/960

It is well known that the archbishop which combines powers of a bishop and a knight and the chancellor which combines powers of a rook and a knight are popular fairy pieces because the master José Raúl Capablanca proposed to add them to a “new” chess to neutralise the threat of "draw death" for master chess. In a parallel to Vladimir Kramnik’s theoretical criticism of Fischer Random/960, “British champion William Winter thought that there were too many strong pieces [in Capablanca chess], making the minor pieces less relevant.” However, Kramnik and Fischer Random/960 is the more interesting case because we know he has come up with an alternative solution to computers squeezing out human creativity. He thinks it is necessary because even other masters don’t enjoy the game until more familiar positions are achieved and “it also seems to lack an aesthetic quality found in traditional chess, which makes it less appealing for both players and viewers, even if it does occasionally result in an exciting game”. In other words, he sees the main practical flaw of Fischer Random/960 as being that the vast majority of both players and viewers think more like Capablanca about how a “new” chess should be. 24.49.51.83 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

so what now? Thewriter006 (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Please clarify the 2 new observations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess#Observations_2

1 - Since the King, Queen and Rooks all move sideways, only the BNNBXXXX, XBNNBXXX, XXBNNBXX, XXXBNNBX, XXXXBNNB, XXXXBNBN, XXXXBBNN, NNBXXXXB, NNBXXXBX, NNBXXBXX, NNBXBXXX, NNBBXXXX and BXXXXBNN starting positions have no legal way to transpose into any other starting position. This makes 156 starting positions with truly independent opening systems, and the 96 XXXXBNBN, XXXXBBNN, NNBXXXXB, NNBXXXBX, NNBXXBXX, NNBXBXXX, NNBBXXXX and BXXXXBNN starting positions will leave a pawn unprotected.

2 - Any starting position where one knight is not adjacent to the King or Queen or a Bishop will leave a pawn unprotected. Most such starting positions will have the two knights adjacent and exist among the 804 which have a legal way to transpose into any other starting position.

They are in separate bullet points, but I think they should be merged somehow. Eg the 804 of course is the complement of the 156. Thewriter006 (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

How could a user just remove the quotes after RFC originator gave up? Why did the user leave the critical comments but remove the positive comments?

see the subject Thewriter006 (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to remove the critical comments as well. User:Quale also missed the comments that had been moved to the section "Fide World Championship". So I assume that it was just an honest mistake. Don't forget WP:GOODFAITH.

The Survey comments do not indicate any support for leaving the comments as is, other than yourself. The best way to proceed from here is to remove them altogether, leaving it for you, or for somebody, to write a section about the critical response to FRC, or as it is called, a "Reception" section, which would be something other than a flat presentation of quotations. I don't know what it would be, but alternatives 2 and 3 were mentioned several times in the survey responses. If you don't feel up to starting from scratch, perhaps somebody else would give it a try. A proper Reception section would be very helpful for this article.

I don't know how to answer your question about User:Ixtal. Your own responses to Ixtal's comments have been obtuse. What Wikipedia depends on is collaboration. If you want this article to be good, you are going to need the collaboration of other editors, preferably experienced ones like Ixtal. If an editor quits working on an article because he/she can't get you to learn and understand how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written, you've lost an important chance to get collaboration. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We both know, no one will be composing a worthwhile Reception sec. (It won't be happening. The complexity, motivation required, talent required, reduce possibility zone to near zero.) Good articles s/b interesting & enjoyable to read. The article is so dry now my throat hurts. Deleted quotes won't be enticement at any point forward to any qualified candidate writer to "incorporate". --IHTS (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

how's my wikiquote please? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess Thewriter006 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

how's my wikiquote please? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess Thewriter006 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thewriter006, the RFC consensus was clearly against presenting 30+ quotes in bulleted lists in this article. If you revert or restore the quotes in any substantially similar way I will ask an administrator to step in. I suggest you consider WP:WAR before taking any such action. Quale (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

1 - how's my wikiquote please? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess

2 - how DO you ask admins to step in? I wanted to ask an admin to step in when Ixtal took off that entire section w/o warning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thewriter006#BRD Thewriter006 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

wikiquote

lemme know what you think please

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess Thewriter006 (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

wikiquote is just external links?

obviously to new wikipedia here. ok now that wikiquote is made

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess

can we do anything like have a section on what grandmasters think about 9LX but then the entire body is just '(see wikiquote)' ?

and if not then i mean... just something to let people know 'hey top players actually do talk about this a lot' and many of them are pro-9LX? or well even like a mini-quote section maybe like in chess endgames

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chess_endgame#quotes

note: this may or may not have been discussed already above. lazy to check and it may have not been elaborated upon due to the lack of a wikiquote page in the 1st place. Thewriter006 (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding Chess870 to the table but removing Chess18?

My addition of Chess18 to the table of similar variants was removed because there is "no indication of notability" of Chess18. That's fine, but is there indication of notability of Chess870? They both seem to lack notability and are not generally played as variants on their own. I know that Chess18 was at least played in a tournament format in the Timber Moose Chess18 event which featured popular chess players, including Anna Cramling, Daniel Naroditsky, Eric Rosen, and others.

I'm fine with leaving Chess18 out, but how can that be consistent with leaving Chess870 in? Is there evidence that Chess870 is a more notable variant than Chess18? Theferocious1 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add Chess870, I've no idea how long that has been there for. In any case, that is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. In my view neither should be listed unless there are reliable sources indicating its notability. If Chess18 was used in a tournament with top players then there should be significant coverage of the event. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The lack of notability seems to be an issue with other variants listed in the table as well. For example, "Shuffle chess" is listed as having 5040 positions but on ChessBase, shuffle chess is defined similarly to Chess2880 with 2880 positions. Meanwhile, transcendental chess is not included on the table, yet has been a noted variant since 1978. At the very least, Chess870 should be removed and transcendental chess should be added for consistency.

As far as I'm aware, Chess870 isn't even properly considered to be a separate variant. Rather, it's considered to be a subset of Chess960 positions. By this logic, there doesn't seem to be a reason to exclude Chess90 which is also a subset of Chess960 positions. Theferocious1 (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I would have no issue with Chess870 being removed in that case. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Chess18 event was covered in Chess Life. I've added the citation. Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Naming issues

It seems wrong to me to give the name 'freestyle' in the lede; the name of the game does not necessarily change every time a sponsor comes up with a different branding. Knot Lad (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If reliable sources were to begin calling it "Bozo Chess", we'd have to say so in the lead. Encyclopedias and dictionaries should describe usage, not prescribe usage. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Considering the influence of Wikipedia, a mention of it in the lede would legitimize it far more than it would ordinarily be. I'll be honest; I hate the name "Freestyle" chess. It's been called Fischer Random and Chess960 for a long time. That gives it a well established foundation. "Freestyle" has not been publicly used prior to this tournament, nor has it been used in any of the major chess websites and literature. If it becomes a commonly used name in the future, then I would say it's acceptable to include it. 2601:283:8481:2420:B02B:67B:57A8:10B1 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it is a goofy name and it makes me cringe, however, it is being used by mainstream sources such as The Guardian and Reuters. I simply do not believe in removing well-sourced usages because it might "legitimize" unorthodox usages through their mere mention. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed it from the lede. Notably I did this because the term was trademarked by the organizers of the GOAT tournament (https://www.freestyle-chess.com/news/freestyle-chess-major-announcement-by-magnus-carlsen-and-jan-henric-buettner/) and they specifically refer to the variant they're playing as Chess960 in that article ("Freestyle Chess is a registered trademark. [...] All games will be played according to chess960 rules (also known as Fisher Random)"). Freestyle Chess is branding for their tournament and organization (notably the Freestyle Chess Players Club and Freestyle Chess Grand Slam Tour) and is not, at least currently, actual chess lingo. This may change in the future as a result of this trademark, but for now I think it's best we avoid fad marketing terms outside of discussing the fad itself. 2601:283:8481:2420:B02B:67B:57A8:10B1 (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I was digging through the history of this page on the variants and found that the "synonym" issue has occurred before with the Chess9LX tournament. They ultimately came to the conclusion I did regarding trademarks. It's worth reading through and noting, since this kind of branding issue may come up in the future. 2601:283:8481:2420:B02B:67B:57A8:10B1 (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Similar variants should be removed or changed

Most of the text in the "Similar variants" section contains information about variants which aren't notable. For example, Chess18 is not played on a wide scale nor is it an official variant. The only source given is one unofficial tournament played by some chess streamers. This is not a widely played or notable variant. It is just a subset of Chess960 starting positions.

Also, the table is a bit misleading as it shows the number of positions possible in each variant if the sides aren't mirrored. However, Fischer Random requires that the sides are mirrored. Theferocious1 (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You make a good point about the number of positions for an unmirrored Fischer Random board... such positions are by definition impossible. I will put an "n/a" in that cell, with perhaps a footnote to explain. Regarding Chess18, I see no harm in the content... it is indeed very obscure, but it is still a thing and I personally found it of interest. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there any standard for what makes a variant "official" enough to be included? I could come up with tons of variants that surely shouldn't be included. For example, what about the subset of chess960 positions where the king always starts on the e-file to allow for castling where the king always moves two squares to the left (long-castling) or right(short-castling)? There are 204 such positions. Should Chess204 be included as a similar variant? Personally, I don't think that would be appropriate as it is not notable or played. I'd argue that Chess18 is a similar case. Theferocious1 (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Updating the Theory section

We have made an analysis of all Chess960 starting positions at https://github.com/stumpc5/chess960/ .

1. We also computed advantages for white with Stockfish 16 by letting it play 20k games for each starting positions. The results differ from previously computed data: https://github.com/stumpc5/chess960/blob/main/analysis_overview.md#sorted-by-average-points-for-white

2. Our main goal was to provide openings for each starting position. We were able to recover well-known openings for classical chess, and provide novel openings for all variants.

Details are in the github repo, and I'd be happy if someone updates the "Theory" section accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The tree stump (talk • contribs) 06:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 2024

Fischer random chess → Chess 960 – "Chess 960" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this chess variant, based on press coverage (newspapers.com articles found from the last 20 years: 82 mentioning "Chess 960" and 65 mentioning Fischer Random Chess, many mentioning both), major chess sites including chess.com and lichess.org, recent books, and chess organizations. Other Wikipedias have also started to move away from "Fischer" in the title with 20 out of 39 using "960" in the title instead. While Fischer Random Chess is still often used as a term, it is no longer the most common name. In recent years, "Fischer Random Chess" is typically mentioned only once in reliable sources, often parenthetically or as a secondary term, with "Chess 960" used for the remainder of the article, book, etc. While the article does discuss several other variants, the focus of the article is Chess 960 and it makes sense to keep the article history connected to Chess 960 as a topic. As to "Chess 960" vs. "Chess960", including the space seems to be more frequent based on newspapers.com and Google searches, but both are often used. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This question has been discussed here before, most recently in #Move of page (Fischer Random Chess or Chess960).

Counting sightings in newspapers.com and coming up with 82 versus 65 doesn't get me excited about making an article name change. 82 versus 65 is not a large edge, and WP:COMMONNAME refers to "a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources". I do not oppose this move, because I am not familiar with the literature, but the rationale as stated is unconvincing. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That discussion is from five years ago and usage has shifted further. My primary concern is following WP:COMMONNAME.

There aren't a lot of books focused on the variant, but the three available on Amazon right now (oldest to newest):

• Milener, Gene (2006-01-01). Play Stronger Chess by Examining Chess960: Usable Strategies of Fischer Random Chess Discovered.
• Briffoz, Eric (2018-06-10). Adventures in Chess960: Fischer Random Chess - Volume 1.
• Gordon, Ray Charles (2019-03-24). 960 Stems: A Complete Guide To Chess 960 Openings.

The subtitles on the first two books are in smaller print.

FIDE rules? Chess960. Want to play a game on chess.com or lichess.org? It's listed as Chess 960 and Chess960, respectively. Common usage has also shifted along with organizations and companies. For example, There are 236 posts with "Chess 960" or "Chess960" in the title on Reddit's /r/chess forum from the last 16 years, and 118 posts with "Fischer Random", "Fischerrandom", or "Fischerandom" in the title. But if you only look at posts from the last year, it's 37 to 10. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Calling the game "Chess 960" has become common in reliable sources... proponents of referring to it as such sometimes admit it's because they simply don't want to use the "F" word. I think the scrubbing from the history books of the mention of the name of any person who might done or said some dastardly things in his day is misguided and populist and as the editor of an encyclopedia and not USA Today, I cannot support the trend. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly which Wikipedia policy or guideline are you citing here? WP:COMMONNAME is policy. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)