Jump to content

Talk:Sam Loyd: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 22: Line 22:
I’ve had a stab at a balanced (and referenced) view of his reception in [{{fullurl:Sam Loyd|oldid=365551240}} this revision], but please feel free to improve!
I’ve had a stab at a balanced (and referenced) view of his reception in [{{fullurl:Sam Loyd|oldid=365551240}} this revision], but please feel free to improve!
:—Nils von Barth ([[User:Nbarth|nbarth]]) ([[User talk:Nbarth|talk]]) 01:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:—Nils von Barth ([[User:Nbarth|nbarth]]) ([[User talk:Nbarth|talk]]) 01:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


I aggree. This isn't a very good article yet for such an interesting character, and focuses too heavily on chess.
:- Anonymous (2010-12-04)

Revision as of 19:47, 4 December 2010

Old talk

I'm not sure if the solution is best given on the image page (where I've put it) or on the article page, or somewhere else. The image page keeps it away from view for people trying to solve the problem, but it's clogged up with some stuff about the images edit history and so on. If somebody wants to move the solution therefore, go ahead. --Camembert

Just to note: the solution is now found at Excelsior (chess problem). Seems reasonable enough, I suppose. --Camembert 23:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page is too small for a genius like Sam Loyd Jeroje 14:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)jeroje[reply]

The ranking of 15th in the world seems suspect. From what I can see on the chessmetrics web site, at Paris 1867, Loyd (who had not been rated before) scored 0 against opponents rated 2686. For some reason that gets a performance rating of 2466, but that can surely only be a maximum limit. Athulin (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and balance

As a biography, it’s particularly important to provide balance – Loyd is recognized both as America’s greatest puzzler, but also as a liar, huckster, hoaxer, and has been called rather worse things besides (e.g., claiming credit for 15 puzzle, tangram history hoax, etc.).

I’ve had a stab at a balanced (and referenced) view of his reception in this revision, but please feel free to improve!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I aggree. This isn't a very good article yet for such an interesting character, and focuses too heavily on chess.

- Anonymous (2010-12-04)