User talk:Ihardlythinkso

Archives

Userboxes

vn-10This user talk page has been vandalized 10 times.

This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.

This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice.

This user has nibbled
The Donut of DOOM

“He” discussion on WIkiProject Chess

I don’t know if you still care, but in case you do and didn’t know, it looks like the discussion’s moved to WikiProject Chess. Right now it mostly seems to be people trying to explain to Georgia guy why it’s not a problem, and he missing the point. —Frungi (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thx, but I won't be participating anymore due to the nastiness involved, including blatant mischaracterizations what I've written, and repeated no-consensus bullying reverts. The attempts to gender-neutralize "A player wins by losing all his pieces" have been amusing -- they've all compromised the text to one degree or another, and some tries have been downright absurd. The changers are nonetheless undisuaded, as though it is somehow *unthinkable* to allow the simplest and best text to stand. (Evidence to me, there is something much more sinister at play than simply "not getting it" -- i.e., an extremist social/political/language-changing POV agenda. So no matter how many good faith explanations ChessPlayerLev offers, he cannot win that debate, it isn't consistent with the POV pushers' agenda and aims.)

We simply *must* find a way to not disclude the egg-bearing side of the human race in the chess variant article rules text, no matter what. (No matter what!) Otherwise ... otherwise ... otherwise ... ... otherwise someone might just pee in their pants! (Too funny.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

p.s. If I'm pissed off from being misrepresented (again) though, I might speak up. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mad pawn chess

What happens to promotion? A mad pawn cannot find itself in a position where it would have no legal moves on an empty board, unlike the FIDE pawn. So am I correct in assuming that promotion is optional? (Might be useful.) Double sharp (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thinking ... ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Problem is, I don't know what a true arrow pawn is like re promotion (wasn't able to get add'l info thought I might in a copy of World Game Review. Arrow Pawn Chess, Pritcard ECV, taken from Fairy Chess Review (1938): "An arrow pawn moves one or two squares orthogonally in any direction and captures one square diagonally, also in any direction, but does not promote. [...] E.P. capture may occur on any two-step move." George R. Dekle's Three-Man Chess, using arrow pawn, has these rules: "After moving to the 5th rank, the Pawn becomes an Arrow Pawn and may move one square orthogonally in any direction or capture one square diagonally in any direction, with the exception that it cannot reenter its home 1/3 of the board. Upon moving either to the far side of the board or to either enemy's back rank, the Pawn may promote normally."

My guess is Dekle wanted to keep things as much like ortho chess as possible (and so included promotion).

Don't know what about this. (Lack of info on def.) If I were a game inventor, I'd play-test all of the forms until able to draw conclusion which played best (no promotion, promotion optional, promotion mandatory). Since "Mad Pawn Chess" was semi-serious, we co-inventors can do anything. (How about, a mad pawn "self-destructing" upon entering the far rank, destroying everything in a 3x3 area it is at the middle-top of, including any friendly pieces!? [Because madness seldom leads to happy endings. And "Watch out! -- It's mad!"] Or maybe mad pawns should just stay mad -- like an asylum with all patients escaped, no care facilities or treatment available, in that case the pawns wouldn't understand the benefits of promotion or know what to do if promoted!?) Okay, clearly I'm having too much fun with this (he-he). What do u think? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer mad pawns staying mad. We might want to try playtesting this! Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they're already quite powerful. (And once mad, usually no turning back, right? No mad soldier has probably ever been promoted to queen, bishop, or knight!) What about double-steps, Double sharp? ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer them being only legal on each mad pawn's first move (not capture), just like orthodox pawns. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And only straight forward, yes?, not sideways (as in Arrow Pawn Chess). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Allowing sideways movement seems more consistent logically, but I wouldn't mind either alternative. What's the value of a mad pawn, BTW? I would guess about 1.5 to 2 normal pawns, but I could be wrong. Double sharp (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I was gonna guess 2.5! (It's basically subset of a king, with initial double-step, en passant, and immunity from check capabilities. The king is assigned 4 of course.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be sure we're on same page above, I was referring to initial two-step option only. (I.e., first-move two-step option is only orghogonally forward, not sideways?) I could see logic either way. (The logic of extending orthogonal two-step to additional orthogonal directions the pawn has possible for the two-step. And the logic of adding to the ortho pawn, only single-step orthogonal move in any direction, plus single-step diagonal capture in any direction.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Playtest!? My MPs (Military Poice?! No! -- Mad Pawns, or, Mutated Pirhanas) can beat up your MPs "any day of the week". ('Cause those things are *cray-zee*. And they want to eat you alive!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A chess question

Hello Ihardlythinkso.
I noticed you were a chess player and I always wanted to find a chess player to ask this:
On the board the white queen faces (is in a column with) the black queen, the white king faces the black king.
How would the game change if this was reversed, i.e. if the white queen faced the black king, the black queen the white king
(or "vice versa": there's two ways to do this, white king to the right, etc., or white king to the left, etc. but it should lead to similar results).

Yeah, it doesn't matter, it's just a reflection (difference). The difference to play is that (1) openings would all be trashed, and (2) games would probably be more exciting, because, castling short (0-0) is done much more frequently than castling long (0-0-0), because it is quicker to accomplish, and safer (no unprotected pawn). So with both players castling short, they are free to pawn-storm on the opposite wing. (Mutual pawn storms on opposite wings is always exciting play. "Who will get there first?") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Has there been any simulation of such "central reflection" symmetric chess, as opposed to the "horizontal reflection" symmetric chess that it is within the usual rules of chess?

The idea to "central reflect" the royalty has been around a long. long time (more on that later), but am not aware of any testing (but who knows?). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any sequence of permitted moves that could bring the normal "horizontal reflection" starting pattern to this "central reflection" starting pattern?
(I suppose not, since pawns would have to be moved that could never be brought back to the 2nd line, but I thought I'd ask since I'm not au fait of all the more obscure rules)

Your supposition is correct. (Not possible.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Note the (naked) chess board is "central reflection" symmetric, not "horizontal reflection" symmetric.

Interesting point. (And I never heard of "naked" board before, only an empty one!) One thing though, that's only true if the squares are checkered. The earliest chessboards were uni-color. Square colors are really meaningless - there just as visual aid to pick out bishop/queen diagonals. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Naked board. Hmm. At first I thought it might've come from French since that's the language I speak most of the time. But no, a Google search confirmed in French it's an empty board too ("échiquier vide") and naked board ("échiquier nu") is just as unknown. I'm worried. I'll have to see a shrink about this. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 14:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There is such thing as naked king (only the king left, or sometimes, king stripped of protective pawn cover). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In any case, if you, for fun, ever experiment with a friend with this kind of chess for a few games, tell me what happened and what was different about it.
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 00:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The first variation in Displacement chess#Variations seems to be what I've described above. Transposing black's (instead of white's) king and queen would lead to similar results. Any of this incorrect? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 15:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You found it! (That's it.) Here's what the CECV (Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants) has to say (p. 73, §9.2, "The opposing arrays mirror each other diametrally"):

An alternative to vertical mirroring is provided by diametral mirroring, where like men are at opposite ends of an imaginary line through the centre of the board. An example is given by White King and Queen Interchanged, which has been suggested many times (e.g. in the Chess Amateur, December 1916). A correspondence tournament started in 1935 was won by E. Ancsin of Budapest (+10 −1 =0) with P. Keres and H. Muller as joint runners-up (+9 −1 =1) (Fernschach 12/1937, quoted in Chess Notes). Lord Brabazon subsequently suggested that it be officially adopted for a trial period (Chess, April 1944), but readers' letters (17 published) were predictably conservative.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Pritchard published two of the top games from that 1935 tournament in ECV (Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, p. 88). It's interesting ... in both games, White castled long (king ending on f1)! Black won both games. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Varianti scacchi wild

Accidently ran across this on Commons! (More later ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference between what you have above and this?

I don't see any, either! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Varianti scacchi wild

Both are used on this Italian page. According to this page the name of these variants is Wild 1 and Wild 6 resp. but http://www.chessvariants.org uses another terminology so I couldn't find them there

Eagerly waiting for more...

Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 05:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Found them ( I think :-) here

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSdisplacementch

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MPdisplacementch

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MZdisplacementch

You can tell I'm not a chess player since I don't quite understand the difference between these three sets of instructions.

All I could tell is that besides flipping king and queen, castling rules are a bit modified (in all three!)

Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 06:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What does it mean that a chess variant has "no opening theory"? If I had to venture a guess, I would say that what is meant is that the variant does not need an opening theory distinct from that of regular chess, so that opening theory for regular chess can still be used for the variant as well. But is this correct? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 06:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it means there is not enough experience with the variant (games, results) to form or crystalize any theory. (Theory grows out of practice.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Several earlier or regional forms of chess have the royalty reversed (queens were ferzan though, diagonal single-steppers). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2012 (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

Chaturanga

Senterej

Quick mate patterns such as the Fool's Mate or the Scholar's Mate don't seem to be available in this variant, or are they? (I have only looked at this superficially, since I'm talking to a chess player, who'll be able to answer this easily anyway:-) On the other hand can you see, without thinking too hard (I'm not expecting you to come up with an opening theory on the fly of course:-) any quick mate pattern that this variant would give rise to and that wouldn't be available in the regular kind? Or quick mate patterns that would be available in both variants? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 13:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Without diagonal sliders, I don't see either Fool's or Scholar's. Those games are slow-moving. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What are the foolsmates in chaturanga and senterej? (I'm defining "foolsmate" not as something which looks like the FIDE fool's mate, but, following Ralph Betza, as the quickest possible mate in a chess variant.) Double sharp (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't know for sure but found this mate in three: 1.g3 Nc6 2.e3 Ne5 3.Ne2 Nf3#. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about the two historical variants shown here (Chaturanga and Senterej) or the variant I asked about in the very beginning? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 20:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh. In the gray diag there's a Fool's (1.d3 c5 2.Bd2 b5 3.Ba5#) and White could play for a Scholar's at c7 with N & B. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A FIDE-like Scholar's with B & Q would be something like 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Bf5 3.Qd2 Nf6 4.Qa5 Nc6 5.Qxc7#. I don't think you can do a Scholar's with N & B, as if Black starts 1.d4 d5 or 1.d4 e5 (both logical adaptations of the sequence of moves in the FIDE Scholar's mate to this variant) he opens a flight square for his king at d7 or e7 which the N & B (I think you mean a set up like Nb5, Bc7) can't reach. Double sharp (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, but not sure the pawn move is required to be a Scholar's. (No real definition other than quick mate on the weakest point.) But I think you're right, Q & B is more apt, since with more chances to occur it would be the most frequent/common. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In the usual setup, the king's bishop and the queen are on the same colour as the enemy king. Changing that makes it harder to have early mating attacks. Another factor to consider is that when the two kings face each other, the open e-file is dangerous to both due to pins and discovered attacks (e.g. the famous trick in Petrov's Defence – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4?! 4.Qe2 Nf6?? 5.Nc6+ and Black loses his queen). If the two kings are not on the same file, this isn't possible. Double sharp (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of displacement chess, what happens when the knights and bishops are transposed from the ordinary starting position (so that White's bishops are on b1 and g1 and his knights are on c1 and f1)? Betza wrote about the six possible arrangements of the rooks, knights, and bishops in FIDE chess. What's the history of this version? Besides being a separate chess variant in itself, it's also a common mistake in setting up the initial position of FIDE chess. Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Found this (Pritchard CECV, p. 71):

Knights and Bishops (suggested by 'R' in a letter to the Illustrated London News, 11 April 1857). Baseline RBNQKNBR. Used in a game between Blackburne and Potter in 1875 (City of London Chess Magazine 1876) and in a tournament in 1879 (Chess Monthly, September 1879). Editorial comment in the latter (Zukertort's?) was hostile: 'We cannot approve of any kind of displacement. The beaten tracks of known openings are, of course, thereby avoided, but this small advantage is purchased at the price of destroying the spirit of the game. However, this particular displacement is vicious in principle ... the first player has such a great advantage that it simply upsets the basis of a fair game'. Regrettably, this great advantage was not revealed. The arrangement was subsequently used in a six-game match between Showalter and Leman, at least one game of which was reproduced in La Stratégie in 1890.

1950s American automobile culture

You're doing great work with that article, keep it up. Malleus Fatuorum 08:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Danke! (Coming from you, it is a great compliment.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Quality help is always appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I recognise quality when I see it. Sadly I don't see it often enough. Malleus Fatuorum 09:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No writing background (or education!) at all, only interest in the language & enjoy learning by doing.

Malleus, am concerned about future of WP vis-a-vis true comment you made re articles eventually turning to gray goo. The open editing policy was the founder's fresh idea, but it seems it is already outmoded (especially re FAs). What is the solution, and, is anyone listening to same? Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's listening, and grey goo is where we're headed. One very simple thing would be to semi-protect all articles at GA level and beyond. But as I said, nobody with the clout to do it cares. Editors are, after all, easily replaceable units of work. Malleus Fatuorum 10:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've pondered that very same idea, and even asked it of others in my editor reviews. Like most things here, there appears to be no consensus on the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As per Malleus's comment, I'm wondering if that section on unions needs removing. I expect to try to tie it more into auto culture today or remove it. It is a bit off of the main topic. I was going to yesterday, sinuses killing me so I've been distracted. But it needs tying in to be kept, a mistake I should have remedied earlier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood. (It's just target practice for me -- the dysfunctional text. Editing it doesn't mean I've entered evaluative process and determined the text is appropriate for article. That sculpting is best left to the artists. I just like shooting bad text dead, it's fun [and don't care if it goes away]. It's just practice and a diversion.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC) p.s. Chris Evert was once asked why she bothered to return back over the net, out-of-bound tennis shots from her opponent. Her answer: "Practice!"

Yet another crazy idea

Diagrams for 3D chess (I used Ralph Betza's 8×8×8 Mixed 3D chess variant, because he'd already made up a sample game for it). Although they do take a lot of space, I think this is a reasonably good 2D representation of a 3D board (if we're not going to use separate images). Double sharp (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Permanent link: [1]. Double sharp (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

8×8×8×8 4D chess, anyone? :-) Double sharp (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not? How about chess on various 2d/3d/4d manifolds; e.g. in 2d (surfaces): chess on non orientable surfaces (projective plane, Möbius strip, Klein bottle), chess on a cylinder, chess on a sphere, chess on an orientable closed surface of genus n (doughnut with n holes). I don't know which of these surfaces can be covered by squares in a more or less regular way. But who cares. If they're not squares, let them be triangles, or pentagons, or whatever. The whites and the blacks could be arranged in... But but wait! Why only whites and blacks? How about 3 colors (3 players), 4 colors (4 players). Etc. Etc. The sky's the limit :-) Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 19:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You're an excellent source of inspiration. :-)

Gaussian Integer Chess: Each coordinate is now a complex number of the form a + bi, where a and b range from 1 to 8. Thus you can have squares like (4+3i, 7+6i). Other rules not worked out yet. (This is similar to 4D chess, so we'll need some rules to make it behave differently. For example, movement could be different in the imaginary direction.) Double sharp (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-orientable surface chesses are easier to invent (although I think they work better with xiangqi). Just connect the board. The main problem is deciding how the board wraps around at the boundaries for non-orientable variants (orientable boundaries are easy, as in cylindrical chess). Double sharp (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's how I see the wrapping in Projective Plane Chess:

                          __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 | a8 b8 c8 d8 e8 f8 g8 h8 | a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1
a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2 | a7 b7 c7 d7 e7 f7 g7 h7 | a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2
a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3 | a6 b6 c6 d6 e6 f6 g6 h6 | a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3
a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 f4 g4 h4 | a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 h5 | a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 f4 g4 h4
a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 h5 | a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 f4 g4 h4 | a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 h5
a6 b6 c6 d6 e6 f6 g6 h6 | a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3 | a6 b6 c6 d6 e6 f6 g6 h6
a7 b7 c7 d7 e7 f7 g7 h7 | a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2 | a7 b7 c7 d7 e7 f7 g7 h7
a8 b8 c8 d8 e8 f8 g8 h8 | a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 | a8 b8 c8 d8 e8 f8 g8 h8
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __   ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯   __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
                etc.    | h8 g8 f8 e8 d8 c8 b8 a8 | h1 etc.
                          h7 g7 f7 e7 d7 c7 b7 a7 | h2
                          h6 g6 f6 e6 d6 c6 b6 a6
                          h5 g5 f5 e5 d5 c5 b5 a5
                          h4 g4 f4 e4 d4 c4 b4 a4
                          h3 g3 f3 e3 d3 c3 b3 a3
                          h2 g2 f2 e2 d2 c2 b2 a2
                          h1 g1 f1 e1 d1 c1 b1 a1

Boards without borders are on the opposite side: the square b1 on a board without a border is directly behind the square b1 on a board with a border. Double sharp (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if a1 is black, then a1* (the square behind a1) must be white. This is so that Bishops don't change colours (a round trip from c1 would be Bc1-d2-e3-f4-g5-h6-a2*-b1*-f8-e7-d6-c5-b4-a3-h7*-g8*-c1).

Unfortunately, using the FIDE setup, the Qd8 checks the Ke1 (Qd8-e7-f6-g5-h4-a6*-b7*-c8*-e1). Betza's "Torus Peace Bump" idea should work – if your move passes backwards across your own baseline (from rank 8 to rank 1 for Black, or rank 1 to rank 8 for White), it cannot be a capture.

Extra credit may be awarded if you play using the pieces from Betza's Punch Chess (rook becomes gryphon (FtR), knight becomes nightrider (NN), bishop becomes aanca (WtB), and queen becomes amazon (RNB)), as the nightrider's movement is now even crazier (NNb1-c3-d5-e7-c1*-b3*-a5*-h2-b8*-c6*-d4*-e2*-c8-b6-a4-h7*-b1) than on a torus. Double sharp (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a completely unrelated chess variant idea, but placed here because I couldn't find a better place: if you can give check (or mate), you must. Checkmate is a loss to the checkmating player. Stalemate is a draw. 1.e4?? loses immediately: 1...f5! (exposing the king to checks) 2.Qh5+ g6! 3.Q:g6+ h:g6 and White has lost his queen. 1.d4 seems to be a reasonable first move, similarly to 1.Nf3 and 1.Nc3, but 1.c4?? loses to 1...d5! 2.Qa4+ c6! 3.Q:c6+ b:c6. (Has anyone thought of this before?) Double sharp (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I found two that are close (not exact):

Patzer Chess (Tony Paletta, 1980). A player must check if it is possible to do so but may choose if more than one check is available. A player may win by 'decimation' -- 10 consecutive checks. Hence perpetual check is a win for the player giving it. (Pritchard ECV, 1994, p. 222.)

and:

Simpleton Chess (V. R. Parton, 1961). Checks are mandatory (can choose if more than one possible); captures are mandatory (can choose if more than one possible; checks take precedence); if a player has neither a check or capture possible, he must move a pawn; getting out of check takes top precedence. (Parton Curiouser and Curiouser, 1961, p. 8, paraphrased.)

Xiangqi

Hey there. I finished my copy edit of the article, and hopefully I didn't mess anything up, but if I did, feel free to fix it or let me know. I found it to be a pretty interesting article. I've never played Chinese chess before, but have some skill with the international version, and now I'm looking to buy a xiangqi set. :) This is going on my long list of potential GA targets, but not necessarily soon. If you'd like to collaborate on it sometime in the future, though, I'd be happy to do so. Cheers. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Festivus

		Happy Festivus!
		Here's wishing you a happy Festivus! May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength, may your list of Grievances be short, and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles. —Torchiest talkedits 14:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Retired

MF can confirm the email if he wishes. This edit summary suggests at least a change of mind, if not annoyance with it [2]. The facts are easily confirmed I think, either way. Don't worry about it. Best. Leaky Caldron 13:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Leaky. And I've been gaining more (& more) respect for Bwilkins as the months pass, surprising myself. Truely, Merry Xmas. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your intellectual honesty. I appreciate that. Happy New Year to you, too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thx, ditto. Happy New Year also! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC) p.s. I'll be reading your stuff. I assume OK to put any Qs on your Talk!?

Absolutely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Chess in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Chess for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Grandmaster

Hello Ihardlythinkso, I have noticed that you have recently initiated a large-scale cleanup of articles using the word "Grandmaster/grandmaster". I have to admit I'm somewhat confused by that; what do you mean by "cap when title to a name, or referring to the title itself"? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In chess articles generally, both Grandmaster and grandmaster are used, but there's typically no consistency (it is usually just haphazard, and inconsistent). So to bring some consistency, and (cross-fingers) correctness too, I vote leave all the "grandmasters" alone, but cap them under two circumstances: 1) used as title to a name (e.g. "Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura"), or used to specifically refer to the title given by FIDE (e.g. "There are several requirements to obtain the title of Grandmaster."). What do you think? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The same is true for "World Champion", and (gulp!) even "Master". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at FIDE's web site, and capitalisation is more common than a lack thereof; "Latvian Grandmaster", "Grandmaster title", "a Grandmaster and International Master in their ranks" and "FIDE World Champion (2005)" are some of the things that I found there. I suppose dictionaries might be worth consulting on this matter as well. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The example you found, "Grandmaster title", specifically refers to the title. The example "a Grandmaster and International Master in their ranks", the context is a little absent, but if "ranks" is referring to those titles, then same again. The example "Latvian Grandmaster" lacks context (in a sentence), so I can't form opinion about it. In the Bobby Fischer article, you will find all of these: "Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh", "Dutch grandmaster Jan Timman", "Canadian grandmaster Peter Biyiasas", "Filipino grandmaster Eugenio Torre", "American grandmaster Arthur Bisguier", "Serbian grandmaster Ljubomir Ljubojević", and "German grandmaster Karsten Müller". They are all used in precisely the same way (so should be treated the same), and they were mostly all small "g" grandmaster, before I changed the couple or few to match. Without context for the FIDE example "Latvian" I can't tell, but in all the Fischer article examples, I'd vote small "g" is correct, since "grandmaster" is not being used as a salutation title in them, the word grandmaster is modified by the country name, which makes it a descriptive clause in front of the name, and not part of a title-name combination ("Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura").

The ProjChess "should" pinpoint the standard convention for articles, but that is unlikely. Meantime, there is haphazard inconsistency. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Here you go—[3], [4] and [5]. I've crossed out the third quote, as I did not really like the source. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure which exact examples in those articles. In the first link, "... and is a current World Champion among women", I would agree w/ the cap since it refers to the specific title/person holding it. In the third link, "... playing a former World Champion Veselin Topalov" I would agree w/ the cap as it's a title to a name. The second link: "... congratulated the Argentine Grandmaster Miguel Quinteros" is different from my edits, where I used small "g". But! (I used small "g", because that was the majority convention in those articles as far as I could make out. As mentioned, I can see some logic in that convention, for consistent application using small "g". However, for me personally, I don't really care which it is in articles, "Argentine Grandmaster Miguel Quinteros" or "Argentine grandmaster Miguel Quinteros", just as long as there is consistency. There are many times where "grandmaster" is used not in context of any named individuals, and I don't know but assume you agree with that convention. When "Grandmaster" is title to a name, it is for sure cap'd. When there is a country modifier preceding, does it change things? That would have to be decided so it could consistently be applied or not. Again, I found most use already in articles with small "g" when there is a country modifier, and I can see some logic in that. I could also see some logic in cap "G" when there is a country modifier. Perhaps there is a "correct" and "incorrect" here re English capitalization rules, but I don't know what it is. The FIDE examples should not be taken as a bible though, for example, even the sentence with the first example is grammatically flawed: "The Chinese has already clinched the first place in the overall Grand Prix cycle and is a current World Champion among women." (Already demonstrates poor editorship.) Even if there is a FIDE consistent practice, I'm not sure copying and applying that practice to WP articles is the way to go, if it counters what is generally currently done in WP articles, unless there is a ProjChess adoption of the convention. But ProjChess is not apt to adopt any convention any time soon re this, there is little care about capitalization "g" or "G" in different contexts, or "World Champion" or "world champion". There is apathy on anything like this. [If one were to open a thread at ProjChess asking "When do we use 'Grandmaster' and when 'grandmaster'? When do we use 'World Champion' and when 'world champion'?", I doubt there would be much interest and certainly no consensus to establish a Project convention. If you think there might be some potential to do it, good luck.] So there is a lot of haphazard inconsistency in articles. What I have been doing with my edits, is attempt to fit in to current general use, what I can make of it in articles, and apply consistenly, when there is some logic in the use, needed for a guide.) Ok, let me know what you think. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Fischer article

I don't think I've ever seen such misuse of the policies WP:NPV and WP:PEA in all the time I've been editing this site. What's the deal with this guy? Toccata quarta (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dunno for sure, but it's scary, he's got a long list of words on his User, which he seems to think denote POV. (So I'm guessing use of any of those words, triggers & drives his aggressiveness. Imagine. POV at an individual *word* level! Oh boy.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

BCO 2

This one shows "Garry Kasparov" and looks like the one on my desk in front of me. (I didn't take the picture on Amazon.) It's well known that Kasparov prefers "Garry", apparently so that his name has 13 letters which he considers his lucky number. Quale (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Two diff covers for the same book edition! (I wonder how that came about.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Different ISBN, different year, different publisher! World cat lists 12 different issues of BCO 2. Two are used as a reference in the Ponziani Opening. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 02:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I think the books are the same except for publisher and obviously the title page. I consolidated the cites to use the edition cited most often. Quale (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of Betza's chess variants

How are my new article creations? Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see that. Not too shabby! (OMG! WOTN! Compleekated and kewl! [But we must remember, nothing can hold a candle to MPC, natürlich.]) I'll probably attack your articles w/ some editorial reefinemonts and stuph licke dat -- thyme permeddling. I'm shure you donut and wonut mind atoll cuz I kan sea uh lot ov improovmunt in the grammer and miner arraignments, and so froth and sew on. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

MPC? Double sharp (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"Metropolitan Police Commission". (No wait! ... "Mad Pawn Chess".) ; Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

McDonnell versus De La Bourdonnais, Match 4 (16), London 1834

Hi Hardly.

Thanks for your all your edits at McDonnell versus De La Bourdonnais, Match 4 (16), London 1834 that I started. They were a great improvement and I shall take them as a model.

New to this. It's satisfying but surprisingly time consuming. I think I might be able to do one or two every now and then as time and inclination permits. I started one on Kasparov versus Topalov at Wijk aan Zee 1999 (the famous combination) in my sandbox but I'm not likely to have the time to complete it for a while. Feel free anyone to take over. ChessMinion (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Minion. You added some great content there, it's a wonderful game, so was a pleasure to do some copyedit on it. Remember, it's quality not quantity, and no time factor either since no one is paying WP volunteers! Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP chess piece icons

The WP chess piece icons have a disappointingly low number of fairy pieces. (Is it possible to somehow get the Alfaerie pieces onto Wikipedia? Is that font copyrighted?) Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't find as a font. On the CV comments page, David Howe encourages anyone to put the effort in to making it a font on 9-26-2008. (I could see this working good! Pass the graphics to the WP graphics people to vectorize; it s/ be easy matter to make a font then. No doubt David Howe would approve. But one could write him easily enough at CV.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. It's in bad taste and discouraged to remove your own comments after posted on someones page. Completely removing others comments is against policy. You can strike the comment using the strike wiki coding but we need that for records. [[6]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Does this apply to desks, not just User talk pages? Because User:Thumperward removed inappropriate and snide comments made at me at Villiage Pump Help desk, he did not strike them: [7]

He is an Administrator, so he should know about the striking guideline, yes? So is he allowed to remove and not strike? He didn't receive any warning, like you gave me. (When I complained about his snide remarks, his response was [paraphrasing], "What are you complaining about, since didn't you see, I removed those comments??".)

I'd like to understand this. Thx for any help. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally yes it does the key difference is that he did a self revert before any responses were made, usually and it's not a written in stone policy once the comment is made it isn't reverted or removed unless it's in bad faith or a personal attack. the only reason I templated you is because you added a section which was then commented on by that person and you removed his commen as well. Once it becomes a discussion we need that for the records. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So is removal then considered equivalent to striking? And does removal before a response is made, exempt someone from the responsibility of making comment(s)? That is what Chris Cunningham conveyed to me then, that he needn't be in a position to defend a comment he removed, because "Hey! I deleted it, didn't I?" That doesn't quite make much sense. If I go around leaving incivil remarks on editors' Talk pages, but remove same before the receivers have chances to respond, I don't think I'd be considered exempt from responsibility for said comments. I think I'd be shown the door, fast! But Chris Cunninham thought it exempted him. (How does that work?)

It's a little confusing too regarding "records", since my removing the entire thread doesn't remove the thread from records, the intact thread exists as a restorable historical version of the page. (The record is there in full context should anyone need access or to restore it.) So I don't really understand "needing it for the records", since no records are destroyed or permanently erased as a result of any delete removal. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This explains it in it's entirety [[8]] also the next section as well WP:REDACT Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Chess Barnstar
		Thank you for your support for expanding the knowledge of Chess and board games for the safety and expansion of Wikipedia. Please accept this sign of appreciation and goodwill, for your ways of improving tactics and solving sources for the game of Chess; you deserve it. Keep it up. --GoShow (............................) 21:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank u for the barnstar, GoShow! It's very kind of you. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A hyperbolic chess variant

Look at the bottom of User talk:Tamfang#Tri-infinite hyperbolic tilings and let me know what you think. Double sharp (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked, I saw, I got hypnotized, and woke up on a beach somewhere ... Seriously, I need a primer on hyperbolas, I guess. (BTW, what is a hosohedron -- was it a misspelling?) There are several spherical chesses in Pritchard's ECV, one by Nadvorney mapped to 2D, and even a complete game quoted between Paul Yearout and the inventor. (Don't know why "from behind" attacks should ruin a game concept, afterall that's extension of real life war on the sphere called "earth"! Anyway that was a motive for Raumschach going 3D -- attacks from above/planes & below/subs.) This is kinda funny in ECV under Nadvorney: "An infinite move or one which does not change the position is illegal." That makes sense!) Please explain the concept behind hyperbolic boards!? (What is it about? It distorts cells? Is something added?) They are cool-looking, of course, but ... !?! (Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"From behind" attacks are interesting, but using the normal piece set you only have pawns shielding you on one side! Allowing such attacks (e.g. the pieces are not at the back rank) means that you can never actually get your king safe, and while this is certainly an interesting idea, I personally don't really like using it unless you have back-shielding like in Circular Chess. (Perhaps I'm a conservative variantist?!)

It is also interesting to have a very tangled starting position (à la Racing Kings or Torus Peace Bump Chess), where the two sides are too close for comfort. This may work very well on spherical boards, but you may have to subdivide the faces for the simplest polyhedra!

BTW, do we even need the tiling to be regular? A rhombicosidodecahedron might be an interesting idea. Or we could use a Catalan solid. Or, to make a completely crazy game, a uniform star polyhedron! Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

For a hosohedron, imagine a featureless sphere. Draw lines along the meridians, making sure that all the lines are equally spaced, cutting the sphere into n equal slices. The slices of the sphere and the faces of the hosohedron are connected the same way.

But I think a bipyramid might be better now. Simply take a hosohedron and make another line across the equator, cutting each slice into two equal slices. An interesting idea might be to take {2,8} (hosohedron with 8 slices) and cut each slice horizontally into eight equal slices, making an 8×8 board connected in a strange way. Unfortunately it seems that this would be identical to vertical Möbius Strip Chess (vertical cylindrical chess with a1 connecting to h8, b1 to g8, c1 to f8, etc.)

Now I'll try to explain the concept behind the hyperbolic board as simply as possible. If you don't understand anything, please tell me!

On a normal board, you have squares, and there are 4 squares to a vertex. A square has 90° angles and so 4 fit snugly round a corner.

On a hyperbolic board, you still have squares (although you can generalise it), but you have more than 4 squares to a vertex – let's say there are q squares at a vertex. q can be any number above 4, but you can't alternate colours if q is odd, so we'll restrict q to be even. Let's let q = 6 for now. (When you understand the rules, you can extend the rules to any even q. The third picture in that link has q = 8.)

There are 6 squares to a vertex, so each square must have 60-degree angles. We can't really show this on a screen as our screens are flat, so we'll need some distortion:

(The squares are really still squares! They just look distorted, but they are square.)

To examine how this board is connected, let's look at a specific square. We'll use the biggest white square, near the middle of the board.

Let's begin with the simplest pieces, and start with the rook. The rook moves orthogonally, and there are still four squares orthogonally adjacent to our squares.

Now let's examine the bishop, which moves diagonally. On the standard chessboard, each square is connected to only one other square at a corner. But now each square is connected to two squares at each corner! The bishop can now choose either path, but once moving, it cannot change its direction. To achieve that, we must add the rule that while moving, it exits a square by the vertex opposite the vertex it entered the square through. Since its paths can still split, it must also keep choosing the same direction every time the path forks at a corner. (For example, if it started by turning left, it must turn left at every corner. If this is confusing, imagine you are the bishop facing towards the corner, and then ask yourself which square you would consider to be on your left. The same applies to the right square, of course.)

The queen must still be a combination of the rook and bishop, and the king must move like the queen, but only one square.

Non-leaping knights usually move orthogonally before diagonally, so we will think of them this way, although you will get the same moves either way. Since you can't really change direction mid-jump, we'll pretend that it casts a short-term flying spell on itself, glides one square orthogonally, and then one square diagonally outwards from its starting position (it cannot go back towards its starting position), where it settles to the ground.

This leaves only the pawn. It must thus move one (two on its first move) square forward (towards the opponent) and capture one square forward diagonally.

Castling and en passant can now be defined straightforwardly. But deciding on a good setup may be harder, as (1) the hyperbolic board has more space than a normal board (the exact amount of extra space varies with q) and (2) in hyperbolic geometry, you can't put squares together to make a bigger square. Could you think of one? :-)

(I will soon add diagrams.) Double sharp (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The diagrams won't show squares that the piece can move to but are too far away to see clearly. Double sharp (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Notice that straight lines now appear as arcs of circles! Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

P.P.S. This still leaves some adjacent squares of the other colour untouched by either the rook or the bishop. Should I give them to the rook, or leave them untouched by any piece? But then the king's move no longer can be described as quickly as in FIDE chess. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:166.82.205.115

Someone came on IRC to ask for the edit to be revdeleted. It was also reposted on a couple of other high visible pages. The reposting IP have been independently blocked as well. And oh, I'm a her. -- KTC (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thx for the answer. (And sorry about presuming you were male.) Thanks again for your responsiveness! Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ihardlythinkso. You have new messages at Mkdw's talk page.
Message added 07:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mkdw^talk 07:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost no presentation stds

I remember those unfortunate edits at QGD. For some reason I didn't revert them. It's a year ago now so I don't remember if maybe there were some edits mixed in that I thought were of some value and I didn't feel like taking the work to disentangle them, or if I was just tired that night. I think it is justified to revert edits like that. Quale (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Try not to take it too seriously. It's easy for me to give this advice, but I have to remember to practice it myself. I don't always succeed, as Talk:List of Internet chess servers shows. I don't really think an extensive amount of chess project standards is really the solution to this issue. My belief is that the formatting choices of the original author or the primary contributors to the page should be respected, and that formatting changes made only because the drive-by tourist prefers his formatting are nearly always inappropriate. These sorts of edits are already barred when they change national variety of English or citation style, and the principal is exactly the same for other worthless edits like the ones here. I don't think editors who insist on making worthless edits would be deterred by Wikiproject chess guidelines. The more present danger is that WT:MOS will someday decide that chess openings must follow MOS rules for capitalization, even though those rules do not have a very complete intersection with reality. This may seem unlikely, but the recent ridiculous flap over capitalization of a movie title is sobering.

The most remarkable experience I had with this personally was several years ago when one member of the chess project decided that References sections should be renamed Footnotes. He argued that either one was equally acceptable, so he was justified in making that change even to well-developed articles to which he had never made any constructive edits. (Or in fact any other edit than changing References to Footnotes.) By his own argument, since either was acceptable then I (or anyone else) would be perfectly justified to revert. Then he would make the change yet again and there would be no way out of an endless revert cycle. The obvious solution chosen by Wikipedia is to not make the initial pointless change since the article was fine the way it was originally and worthless edits should be discouraged. In this instance there was nothing to be gained by trying to explain this to that moron (although I tried), but eventually he desisted anyway. If he hadn't I suppose I would probably have ended up getting blocked, as I was really struggling trying to deal with that level of idiocy. Quale (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Battleship salvo

The Salvo rule was repeated more or less verbatim in the "Variants" section; I thought I'd leave it there and pare down the rules to just the basic ones, but feel free to move it around if the Salvo mechanic has enough historical weight that we should mention it in the main rules. --McGeddon (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see that now (in the variants section). No, I think the Salvo rules do belong in the variants section, not the main section. When I opened a section on your Talk, I did a search on "Salvo" and found nothing in the article proper, so I mistakenly thought you eliminated it, sorry. The name "Salvo" was eliminated by this edit, and Salvo is identified only as "a traditional variant". I think the variant should be represented by its name, rather than that vague generic reference. (If you do that I'm happy.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've added an explanation of two different ways in which the salvo results can be announced; I'm only working from a single source here, so you may want to take a look if it differs from how you play it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thx. I made italic to be consistent w/ earlier. It's not how I play of course but what's in sources ... I have the MB 1990 Salvo rules, but your source is better than mine. Good job. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, is it listed as a variant in modern edition of Battleship? I assumed it was only referring to the 1931 edition, which I was struggling to find completely clear rules for. I'll see what I can dig up. --McGeddon (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Milton Bradley 1990 rules are pretty simplistic, I couldn't find the link where I downloaded the pdf from, so have copied below, here's all they say:

How To Play Salvo

The SALVO variation of this game is recommended for more experienced players who have become familiar with the basic game. Use the same rules as in the basic game of Battleship except:

• On your turn, call out 5 different shots. As you call out each shot, mark it with a white peg in your target grid. At the end of your salvo of 5 shots, your opponent announces which shots were hits and which ships were hit.
• If any of your shots are hits, change their corresponding white pegs to red pegs on your target grid. Your opponent places red pegs in the holes of the ships that were hit.

  Example:
  You call: "E-3, F-3, G-3, H-3, I-3."
  Alex answers: "F-3 is a hit on destroyer. H-3 is a hit on cruiser."

• Whenever any one of your ships has been sunk, you lose one shot when you fire your next salvo. The more ships sunk, the less shots you get.

  For example, if 1 of Alex's 5 ships has been sunk, he must call out only 4 shots on his next turn, instead of 5.

  For a more challenging SALVO game, don't disclose which of your ships have been hit.

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For being such a stoic believer in process and procedure. Your love for all things bureaucratic is inspirational. Keep up the great work! Ha ha. Stalwart111 04:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the good spirit (& humour) clearly intended. I believe in things that work. (WP is too dysfunctional, that when it works, it is accidental & fortunate. Mostly however, the Pedia does not work. Proof is loss [& general pissed-off-ishness] from many content creators, including loss of some of the best, e.g. Malleus, who was even labelled a "non-Wikipedian" by a member of the bereau, which magically turned a Request for Clarification request into a motion to sanction/ban. If I can be considered to be a non-Wikipedian [like him] --- it would be the greatest ongoing compliment I can imagine.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. "Editor Retention project" ... what a joke. (What did they learn, or do different, after the loss of Malleus? Nothing. They are proud to just pontificate there, as though they somehow benefit the Pedia. [Malleus even gave a free "exit interview" there with his recommendations, which were summarily ignored, and everyone went back to their pretend playpen "activities".] Talk-talk-talk. It's one thing to think highly of oneself, and it's quite another to have rational reason to do so. Take a look at some of their content contribution histories. The highschool hallways are filled with civility monitors, and that's all that will be left with the current flight path ... except a lot of gray goo too.) /* End of Rant */ Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The occasional rant is worthwhile. The current ArbCom business is a giant cluster-f*ck that helps no-one, improves WP not at all and just generally makes everyone involved look bad. I wonder if they realise how disappointed usually non-vocal editors (like me) really are? I avoid the "drama" as much as humanly possible and am usually content to watch from the sidelines. I will for this one too (probably) but I can't help feeling like I'm back at high school watching the idiots chant, fight, fight, fight. *Sigh* Stalwart111 05:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

But your User page says you enjoy contributing at ANI. (I haven't looked at any of your contributions there, so I don't know. But note this, by User:SandyGeorgia 31 Jan 2012: "The fundamental problem here is that AN/I is dominated by the irresponsible, the responsible generally won't go anywhere near it, and non-admins most clearly don't have the same rights there to speak as admins do. Admins can come in and lob charges at regular editors with narry a diff, but if a non-admin challenges them, they are ignored or chastized.") If you like to avoid drama you should boycott that place. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A contradiction of sorts, though I'm not sure I've said I "enjoy" it. By "drama", I mean the "politics" of WP; Wikipediocracy, IRC, cabals, ArbCom rubbish (though I voted; actually prompted by the Malleus business). I just see WP:ANI as a bureaucracy-fest. Useful sometimes, often not, but really something not to get all that excited about. ANI is an issue, but it's not the issue. Stalwart111 06:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't "bureaucracy-fest" imply structure, order? (It's a chaotic cesspool there. First person to announce "BOOMERANG!" wins. An abusive, dumbing-down mindset.) It's nice to hear you're interested and/or involved in contributing to cleanliness (anti-rubbish), but that job is too big for one human. And "civility" (spotting bad words) is the least problem with civility. (Underhandedness and dishonesty is the true incivility, and that's harder to identify or deal with. So WP doesn't. Here is WP's message: "Wanna lie? Wanna falsely accuse? Go ahead. As long as it doesn't interrupt the building of the encyclopedia, it has no ethical content or weight." A "civil, collaborative environment"? Really? With ethical blindness? Does not compute, Will Robinson!) But I really wish you luck in any/all your reform efforts. (It is a noble cause me thinks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm no reformer! I just have no desire for adminship. Ever. So I can get my hands dirty occasionally fighting the POV-pushers and promo-spammers knowing I won't one day have to account for it answering Q3 at RFA. Agree with your assessment of ANI, for the most part. Stalwart111 12:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. (Who wants to be a hall monitor? The purpose of the encyclopedia is the articles. Content is king.) The best Admins don't let Adminship go to their heads. But that's a tricky business, and takes a superior person to resist the temptation. Take Dennis Brown for e.g. He has constantly reminded us that he is "the last [Admin] to block", which in reality, whether he is conscious of it or not, is a constant reminder [read that threat] that he does have the ability to block, and should he decide to use it, doesn't want to be questioned or countermanded, so the constant reminders are a way to make that bed. But it's so transparent it's silly. The reminders of "I'm the last [Admin] to block" is really waving a club around, indirectly demanding others do as he says, else he will block, and then, what will be left of the poor soul who is blocked, because afterall, he was blocked by "the most lenient Admin of the bunch". Like I said, it takes a superior person to avoid the temptation of power abuse, and not wielding the power, but proclaiming to have it to wield should one decide to wield it is ... less abusive? Aaron Nimzowitsch said "The threat is worse than the execution." I think you're on the right track and wish you luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the good wishes and, of course, the cordial chat. Stalwart111 07:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. User:Quale is a totally good guy at the ProjChess for many years before I even knew what "Wikipedia" was. (Intelligent, thoughtful, careful, patient, fair-minded.) So when he shows a human side of patience break-down and a bit of incivility, you know something is really bad. As newcomer to ProjChess, you couldn't know that context. I think it is important. (More important than "civility breach", since, it runs deeper and telltales more substance.) I disagree with the artificial enforcement of civility breaches around here ... they are usually just excuses for an Admin to block someone they don't like. Admins seem to have not a clue as to the distaste they generate in content contributors, and many have left as a result. And I know I'm resentful toward a lot of it. (I enjoyed reading Malleus, and now, he's gone. Whoever is even partly is to blame for that, won't find kind words from me.) It's been pleasant meeting you too. Ihardlythinkso (talk)

Hi

Look, there's no need to carry on with this. I just wanted to point something out though - if you don't want me to post at your talk page, that's fine. But you can't unilaterally decide what I may or may not comment on at other venues. If you're going to make sarcy comments on other editors' talk pages you've got to be ready to take a few back. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Basalisk, that is superbly hypocritical, and let me tell you why ... Herostratus was making sarcy comments on Malleus's User talk, and, consistent with your value system, I gave him "a few back". Yet, you took that, as an opportunity to attack me. Pure hypocriticality from you, Basalisk. Regarding my request that you cease interfacing with me, it was totally reasonable, as I do not want any trouble with you. But if you insist to cause me trouble, I'll be in your face, and, I really don't want to do that. (That is why I suggested, that you ignore me and don't put messages to my attention anymore. Your message on Malleus's Talk was to harass me, and nothing more. The content of what you had to say was void.) I know you haven't gotten over my criticism of Dennis Brown, who nominated you at your successful RfA, and feel necessary to be against me whenever possible, as some sort of revenge harassment. It's so shallow. I say: drop it, and please go away. You are an Admin, and should rise above harassing the content contributors. Malleus has already left a sad wake on that end, and, I'm not 1% the contributor he was, I am not comparing myself to him. But the shit flying around this place is the same for everybody, the environment here is full of it (pun intended). Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

IHTS, this idea of yours that I have some sort of vendetta against you is absurd: I have interacted with you on a grand total of two occasions; the first time to refute your unreasonable demand that admins be compelled to admonish all bad behaviour they encounter, and the second time now.. I don't know why you keep raising the point of me being an admin; I have never taken an administrative action against you and the A word doesn't need to be an issue in every conversation I have on Wikipedia. I'm still a normal person with an independent opinion, regardless what toolset I have access to. A spade is still a spade. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't stick words in my mouth I never said ("vendetta"). You make me out like some kind of paranoid freak. You are human, you butted your nose where it didn't belong and where you were not invited, and seeing that it was in my conversation w/ Dennis Brown where I was being critical of him, and you are a new Admin he nominated at RfA ... well, I'm not stupid. And as human, you're only oh oh so capable of defending the one who carried you to Admin, and of holding a grudge, which explains your unnecessary and tacky attempt to defame me at Malleus's Talk, it is ever so common, and pointless, and needs no "vendetta" dark & scary. I don't see that you and I have anything to talk about really, you have initiated all conversation with me, I find you insulting and harassing at Malleus's Talk, and a nuisance in other places, so, why can't you just leave me alone? You're a mere 34 percent content contributor, and I'm not entertaining any insults from you, such as that I'm inconsistent with my Userbox message, when you yourself have shown big hypocrisy as already pointed out. Is your purpose as an admin to drive me away as content contributor?! Then do me a favor and show me otherwise, by leaving me alone. I don't see any purpose to this conversation, if not to harass me and cause trouble. (What then? We have no business together, do we?) "A spade is a spade" and that has to do with what exactly? I have no need to be lectured with tautologies. "What was, was. What is, is. What's gonna be ... is gonna be." (Archie Bunker.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a hint Basalisk, I asked you on your user Talk to leave me alone period, and what do you do? Open a thread here on my User. GO AWAY. You have no credibility with me, you've earned that. I want nothing to do with you. Go away and don't come back. And address no comments my way either, the last ones were tacky and unnecessary. I have no interest to converse with you about anything. You don't contribute much to articles, but you contribute to the shit environment at WP. Sorry but I have no respect for that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. More insulting comments from you: "absurd", "bizarre". Go soak your head, Basalisk, and leave me the hell alone with your harassing, tacky crap. How many times does it take to understand that I'm sick of your harassing comments and want nothing to do with you and want you to leave me alone el permanent-o?!

Having trouble keeping your word and following through? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, that's another tacky, shitty thing you did, in your edit summary, falsely accusing me of "following you" as though a stalker. Tacky. Shitty. I gave you a point-blank direct message, to your User talk. Apparently that was too simple for you to understand?! More attempt to manipulatively and dishonestly defame me. You use WP to harass, and you are an Admin. What a shining example of Admin you are! Just go away. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

More of your hypocritical crap, compare:

I have interacted with you on a grand total of two occasions; [...] Basalisk

and:

Another constructive comment from a long line of constructive comments by IHTS right there... Basalisk

Just go away with your manipulative, defaming crap. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Out of the closet

Just in case you missed it, you have now been accused of racism as well. Welcome to the club! Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

And to think, East Indian (food/restaurants) is my favorite! (But I guess, that doesn't get me a free pass from the finger-pointing "Racist!", huh?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Calling people "uneducated" is a personal attack. Comment on articles at AfD, not nominators. Consider this a warning. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, "uneducated" means "ignorant of Wikipedia policies and guidelines". WP:AGF says, "It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules", which is obviously not a personal attack. I don't see a problem there. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You're free to see it any way you please, but he didn't say "ignorant of Wikipedia policies", he said "uneducated", and that's not ok. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Toccata. It's obvious what's going on here, but it's nice to receive supportive comment when being picked out for harassing threats & warning. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Nothing wrong with it in the context it was used. @Basalisk - from the interactions above you are clearly not the most suitable Admin. to offer advice and warnings to this particular editor. You are too WP:INVOLVED. Leaky Caldron 10:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Leaky. It's clear I've pissed Basalisk off by my past responses to him, and now he's actively looking for anything possible to use as justification for a revenge block. (How shameful.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• No need for tears, I never mentioned a block and obviously wouldn't block an editor I've been in dispute with. Just a reminder about the policy on personal attacks. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Go away and leave me alone, Basalisk. You've been continually harassing me here and elsewhere. I want nothing to do with you, as repeatedly told you. Go away forever, please. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

According to you Basalisk, it's "not okay", it's a personal attack, to use word "uneducated" in context of a newbie's knowledge of WP policy, procedure, and practice regarding an unjustified stream of spurious AfD nominations of British chess players; but, apparently, it is okay for him to (in chronological order): state I'm "lazy and pompous" [9], accuse me of masterbating: [10], to comment that my "personality traits" show that I am a "hypocritical blowhard": [11], and to call me an "idiot": [12]. (So, Basalisk, I see you have, on your User talk, assured User:OGBranniff that "Ihardlythinkso" needs "direction"; however, User:OBGranniff's behavior, the personal attacks here and elsewhere, go uncommented on. That's just superb showing of Administrator discretion, that!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI

I hate to get involved in anything at ANI, and I know you've had some bad experiences there. What I see generally at ANI is that editors who care about WP and actually work to improve it get sanctioned if they slip up, usually for some for ticky-tacky civility breach, while editors who cause nothing but disruption get a free ride seemingly forever. It seems that the supposed ignorance of the rules gives new editors and troublemakers a pass, while those who actually try are punished because they are supposed to know better. Anyway, we'll see if the warning that resulted will lead to any changes in behavior. As much as I really, really dislike going to ANI, I won't hesitate to do it again if he gets out of line in the future. And I won't wait as long. The first problem I see, I will report it. Quale (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Quale. I have observed the same pattern. Admins are extremely conservative to block any newbie troll, allowing vandalisms to continue way beyond the pale before anything is done. On the other hand, if *I* so much as irritate (or annoy) an Admin, out comes the block gun, it gets waved under my nose. Too many Admins have shown me they're totally insensitive (uncongnizant) to the effect their misuse of the strong-arm can do, they apparently think they can do no wrong or their Adminship gives them a free card to forget any responsibility re the damaging effects of threats on a proven content contributor. (Because afterall, they got irritated, didn't they?!?)

Let me tell a quick story because it was extremely instructive to me ... In high school history class, the teacher decided to setup a debate between two students about Julius Caesar, whether his execution was justified, or whether it was murder. I was assigned to support the case it was murder; a fellow student was assigned the side to support the execution was justified. We had a few days to prepare our cases. A moderator was selected too, and given the job to stand in front of the class behind a podium between the two debaters, to control things so each side was given equal time. That was her sole job, to maintain a fair debate. When the debate day came, she had a pretty dress on and looked great, I image because she knew she'd be on display in front of the entire class, and she was entrusted with controlling authority. Okay. The debate proceeded. I guess I was making a pretty effective case, because, 2/3 thru the debate, to my astonishment, the moderator turned to me and said, loud enough for the class to hear it, and shaking her head while she said it: "It *wasn't* murder, [Ihardlythinkso]."

I was floored! (The "objective" moderator, took a side! And announced her opinion to the class! [Who would be the !voters re who won and lost the debate.] She was so overcome by her own feeling and opinion on the matter, she couldn't resist expressing her view! When her single mission was to maintain objectivity and simply control time used so the debate would be fair! I was so stunned, being told in front of the class that my side, my case was "wrong", that to this day I don't even remember what happened next [how the debate continued, and whether I won or lost]. I think I went into "shock" at her abuse of her position. And, the teacher said nothing when it happened, equally stunning.)

Moral: It's no different here at WP. An Administrator is entrusted with certain authority, power, and they often immediately proceed to misuse and abuse it -- just like the pretty debate moderator. (Actually, she lasted thru 2/3 the debate, before succumbing.) Why is this a temptation? Why does power corrupt? Maybe just having power, is pressure. ("Why do I have this power, if I don't use it or threaten to use it?") Or maybe they assert it, to remind themselves, by reminding us, that they have it, because that somehow reminds them they are special to get it, and revisiting their achievement is somehow self-satisfying or at least pleasant. Whatever, I don't know. But this I know: power corrupts not only absolutely, it corrupts quickly. And it takes a superior person to be aware of and resist the urge, the pressure, the tempatation. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ihardlythinkso. You have new messages at Monty845's talk page.
Message added 20:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry for the delay in responding Monty₈₄₅ 20:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies thread

• Ihardlythinkso, you may know that OGBranniff asked for my opinion on some edits of yours pertaining to him. I am going to be brief but to the point, and hopefully clear. Leave him alone. Unless I'm mistaken, he's stayed away from you, and you are going to do the same. It seems to me that you cannot get near his edits without taunting and baiting, and I can tell you that this will not lead to more trouble for him but more trouble for you. Now, if OGBranniff is doing something explicitly directed at you, you may speak your mind in one of two ways: you can drop a note on an admin's page (like mine or Monty's, with whom you seem to get along), or you can start an ANI thread (in which case you'll have to be very careful for that boomerang). I don't want to have to go get an interaction ban for you from the Administrator's Noticeboard, so let this informal note suffice. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you specify what you mean exactly, "leave him alone", because, I've never sought out User:OGBranniff in any way, shape, or form. I have responded to what he has initiated on User Talk, Project talk, and AfDs. He has also lobbed many, many name-calls and personal attacks, against me (including accusing me of masterbating [13] when I disagreed on a point of policy with him, calling me "hypocritical blowhard", "kid", "junior highschooler", "dense" [several times], "stupid", and "idiot"). I have not followed in suit, never returned the insults or names, though, I am resentful of the insults and personal attacks. (Would you like the diffs?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, did you see the riducule of me by User:OGBranniff on User:Basalisk's User talk? (Where he lamented the fact I appeared to be "so stressed", and suggested that I need to take some "anger management" class, or some such insult/ridicule.) Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot, and you have not noticed. No one forced User:OGBranniff to register those ridicules, he chose to. I have never made any riducule in any of my edits toward User:OGBranniff. I have been totally serious in all of my edits regarding or in reference to him. Perhaps you should warn him to quit with the name-calling, quit with the personal attacks, and quit with the riducule of me, rather than what you are doing, which is to somehow protect him, and warn *me*, and, for what exactly? How is it that you accuse me of taunting him, when I only ever asked him dead-serious questions in dialogue with him? How is it that you missed the taunt on User:Basalisk's User Talk he made of me? I would like specific answers please, not more warnings and threats. (Regarding ANI, I despise that place, with good reason. Please don't suggest I will or should go there, because I never will. It is a cesspool of irresponsibility, and I reject it out of hand. Many top editors agree with this view of ANI.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, somehow User:OGBranniff got your sympathy, for you to warn me vaguely, and your warn of me, seems to be a vague warning, that should I reply in any way to any argument User:OGBranniff says in any Talk space, then you will interpret it as "taunting" and "baiting" and since I have been "warned", block me. That is strictly unfair, and absurd, and resembles stuffing a sock in my mouth as far as engaging or offering any argument or discussion contrary to what User:OGBranniff might like. Please look again at your instructions for me. As I already told you, *all* of my edits in reply to what User:OGBranniff has initiated, have been dead-serious (with the one exception, a humorous response on User:Basalisk's page regarding OGBranniff's ridicule of me, that I require "anger management"). I do not taunt or bait. But I do expose false argument as false. If having one's arguments shown false offends User:OGBranniff, where he needs to go crying to an Admin to ask "can't you tell that guy to leave me alone?", then it is in essence his asking you for a free pass to say whatever absurd thing in argumentation at Wikipedia he wants, without any counter or objection. (And just take a look at some of his AfD nomination justifications - most of them contain absurd assertions. For example, a well-respected British professional poker player who has written several books on poker, in the AfD, User:OGBranniff stated the article subject was not notable, and wrote books that "no one has bought". I asked on the AfD, what basis User:OGBranniff had for saying that? [14] Was that question a taunt in your subjective esitimation? Was it a bait? If you have accepted OGBranniff's crying to mommy and want to protect him from further objection to his claims on Wikipedia whatever they may be, then perhaps you will say my question was a taunt and/or bait. Do you? If you do, you are as wrong as you can be. The nominator of an AfD claiming non-notability cannot be questioned for statements like that, that he makes? Since when? Since when is that baiting or taunting, to raise such a question that I did? I don't get you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I for one don't need to go running to mommy, should User:OGBranniff say something to my attention that is harassing, defaming, name-calling, a personal attack, as he has already done numerous times already. Therefore, I won't be running to your User Talk, or Admin Monty's User Talk, to cry and ask you to go do something against that bully who was so mean to me. (And even if I did, I'd have egg on my face, wouldn't I, should the Admin I go to for intervention, decide to do nothing?) Running off to an Admin to cry is nothing more than a mini-ANI, and it seems to me, canvassing also, for a desired agenda. Sorry, but I do not operate like that. I wouldn't do that. I won't do that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd really like answers to all the stuff above. Rather than receive vague threats and warnings. My time has already been stolen from editing and improving articles, or working to create new ones. (How do you define "disruption", BTW? Not this?!) If User:OGBranniff is uncomfortable answering questions or challenges to his statements and claims he has made as a result of questions from me, perhaps he should examine his statements and claims for reasonability, because many of those have been baseless hyperbole and clearly simply inflamatory. Or perhaps he should just respond with not responding, or respond with "Thanks for the question, but I won't be responding." That would be just peachy with me. He has the freedom to do that. I can respect that. But to go off crying to mommy because he looks bad or is made uncomfortable by a reasonable question to some something from him (argument or claim) that was outrageous and indefensible, ... what is it exactly we are protecting here? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute the semantics of "leave him alone" to you--I though it was plain English. If, as you think, a large group of editors at the Chess project have a problem with him (I'll just pick on one item from your extensive messages), start an RfC/U. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

But the matter is not whether what you wrote is intelligible, but rather how unassailable it is. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, please stop being crass. 1) I *have* left the trollish newbie alone (previous to, and without requiring, your direction to do so); and 2) I am not the one who would ever start an RfC/U. (I've only looked at one RfC/U, conducted by User:Guy Macon against some engineer editor, and, it wasn't pretty, it looked like a chaotic, abusive pile-on to me. I really don't know RfC/U beyond that look-see, so perhaps am speaking out of school, but really, is it any different from a glorified ANI? [Irresponsibility and abuse. A free-for-all.] I doubt I would ever start one, or particpate much if anyone else did. Maybe 5 words max. Just because Wikipedia has these "venues", does not necessarily impart to them fairness, reasonableness, or acceptability. WP is filled with dumbing-down templates and packaged thinking, cultural replacements for independent reflectivity, and quite frankly, I didn't sign on as WP editor to sacrifice my own healthy thinking and self-respect for the likes of that. [If templated thinking & the virtues of existing venues is a requirement to be a WP editor, then I'll immediately resign. WP needs radical structural change, and for what it's worth, needs to put a collection of the top 10-15 content contributors in charge. Then WP will be a more sane & respectable editing environment, and the best-ever encyclopedia will have no barriers to its growth & maintenance.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. You're probably right about the RfC/U. But I'm just not the person to start it. (I should be probably, but unfortunately, I'm not. It's just the way it is. Thanks for your understanding, truely!)

I don't know where I was crass: I had no intention of crassness. RfC/Us aren't always productive, and they don't by themselves decide on blocks or bans, but they can lead to one. They don't have to be abusive and chaotic. Yesterday I closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Morriswa, both of which went fairly politely. "Templated thinking" and all that is an unfortunate side-effect of our size. Creative solutions are great, but that might well mean that in cases of dispute one single administrator/power player could render verdict: surely you wouldn't want, say, someone like me to creatively intervene here since that might not be in your favor. (Note that I have not blocked anyone.) An RfC/U can be taken to WP:AN and be the next step toward, for instance, a topic ban or even a site ban. They are a much better vehicle for dealing with patterns of disruption, which is what I think you see in your opponent (or vice versa, for all I know), than is ANI: that's for single incidents, or for a very small set of incidents. It's a possibility. I don't encourage you to start one right now: I think (both of) you should (continue to) disengage--the parenthetic modifications are because I do not wish to presume what's going on right now; I got other things on my mind (the kids are fine again, thanks). Best, Drmies (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll read that RfC you linked. I got my impressions of chaos of RfC/U from reading the one I mentioned, it was nasty, it was abusive. Then, at a later point, User:Guy Macon, who's since been a nice guy and voluntarily disengaged from harassing me, threatened me with RfC/U. And User:OBGranniff went to Admin Basalisk's Talk, and proposed RfC/U against me. I don't like or respect Basalisk. And there are several others I don't like in this big place. There are many I do like. So the only logical conclusion is, Drmies, that RfC/U is BS. All your enemies will show up. Simply and only, because they don't like you. Well, I don't like them. So do I respond tit-for-tat, and threaten them with RfC/U? No. That is participating in the shitty environment that has evolved at WP, which, I reject. So for me, RfC/U is meaningless, and tacky. A ganging-up by people who don't like you, and used as a club to intimidate, when the wielder, full of bs. I can name, I suppose, one dozen editors I don't like, that don't like me. (And that's more than enough to do an RfC/U with, right?) One of them opened an ANI against me once. And who showed up to comment? Who were invited to the abuse-fest? The other distinct editors on the list of those I don't like, who don't like me. But ANI has it's own independent problems (an atmosphere of irresponsibility, where it is a collection magnet to meet editors in future you will not like, e.g. for me most recently, Magog the Ogre). The processes at WP stink. Does an RfC/U have a moderator? No. Does ANI have a moderator? No. Do they have screens to filter out misuse as a retaliatory "I'll-get-you" device? No. (Or even a screen to filter out wrong venue? No. E.g. I've seen numerous Admins say ANI is to be used as last-resort after other DR vehicles have been exhaused, including going to a user's Talk to discuss a complaint with them. But in reality, countless ANIs are opened and processed as first-resort, and again, as a retaliatory club to wield for some perceived offense, often trivial and exaggerated. Even Admins have been guilty of this.) They are abuse-fests, and that is why irresponsbility has grown there like bone cancer. When you say they don't "have to be" that way, I'm sure you're right, but, it isn't any comfort. Thank you for your comments, I know you're trying to be helpful, I appreciate. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I read everything at the Darkstar1st RfC/U you linked, including discussion page. It was very unsettling. (Four maybe five users clamoring for a topic ban of Darkstar on all political articles, three editors [you, Collect, & North] drawing conclusion the RfC/U was "narrow, partly malformed or misguided". At one point Darkstar mentioned his experience with contacts having lived in Budapest through WWII, and in response an editor jumped in to unfairly accuse him with [essentially] "See? There he goes again, equating communism with socialism" when Darkstar's statement did nothing of the sort. [Was there a moderator calling an out-of-line low blow? Nope!] There was also a pissing contest about a Checkuser run on Darkstar, whether it was warranted or not, and the credibility of the requests and how they were made, in addition to a suggestion that the Checkuser evidenced an unstated agenda against Darkstar. There was testimony, not refuted or even objected too, that Darkstar had been subjected to lots of nasty stuff at the article Talk, and that he never replied in kind. On the discussion page, Darkstar politely said he would avoid TFD in future, which seemed appropriate due to the entrenched attitude against him by that user.) This is your example of an RfC/U that "doesn't have to be abusive and chaotic", and is an example of one which "went fairly politely"?? Man! If anything this RfC/U bolstered my impression at the drama-filled emotional & psychological violence of that forum. A witch hunt. p.s. I don't understand everything that I read in that RfC/U, which is probably normal for being relatively unacquainted with them, for example, why an editor taking the position of advocating topic ban, would !support/endorse an outside opinion by editor making the case that the RfC/U was a content dispute and didn't belong. (Confusing stuff like that.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Well, I apologize about that "hard on" comment from some time ago. And calling you "lazy," you are definitely not lazy; you are quite the article contributor. I'm sure we'll get along fine from now on. What I was getting at on Toddst's page is I think that its User:Quale that really caused you all this stress with his hasty ANI and then his badgering of admins after the case was closed, combined with his unabashed insulting of me, calling me "worthless," etc. OGBranniff (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But you're wrong about Quale, he's highly respected on the ProjChess, and for good reason. He's been a significant contributor going back way before my time here (I'm relative newbie), and I've never seen him take an expressly negative view of any editor before (and I'm guessing he's never taken anyone to ANI before, either). Quale is a total professional, but he's human too, meaning there is a limit to his patience and what he will tolerate, and I think it is the simple case that the series of your offensive edits pushed over that limit. The ProjChess members are all adults and respect one another here, and when there is disagreement about anything, you'd hardly notice it, since they respect one another's independence, and judgement. They just compare ideas and options, and are honest and respectful throughout. That is the culture here, and I think it is a good one. So I never second-guess Quale, what he might say always has my implicit respect, so I give consideration what he says, he doesn't waste words. My recommendation is that if Quale has put some harsh words your way, it would be a good clue to realize something from them, there has to be a solid reason behind. (You needed to make an adjustment; you weren't listenting. I think they call it WP:CLUE, but I'm not sure.) You also didn't establish any track-record at WP editing articles before advancing a bunch of AfDs, and that puts you in a strange dish of distrust. (Your purpose here, etc.) That is only normal. Question for you: What happened over at Chess.com, to put such a huge chip on your shoulder? (Just a summary would be fine.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

OGB, IMO, if you really want a future on the WP, you need to cease & desist from threatening and attempting to intimidate others, and immediately check out WP:MENTOR and WP:Adopt-a-user. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not threatening or intimidating others, I would just like an apology from Quale. The things he says about me are totally beyond the pale. OGBranniff (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The RfC/U stuff is perceived as threat to intimidate and retaliate. There's "all bad" written over it. I believe Quale isn't cutting you any slack, because you've pushed past his patience-line in recent past, and it seems you also are still showing aggressiveness (accusations, insults, on WT:CHESS). You should be trying to make a big adjustment instead. (Whether you're capable or whether you want to, is up to you, but the road you're on is without doubt going to spell the end of your Wiki-life one way or another. Is that what you want?!) Remember this: Drama = Poison. It is always bad. (No one likes it, for good reason: Editors want their voluntary time spent here to be productive, furthering the mission of building an encyclopedia. Drama consumes, it doesn't produce.) To get over your hurt feelings about anything Quale said, you should take stock of the your past edits, as so many were unnecessarily inflamatory. Quale isn't just "anybody", or I might have a different view. (Quale is well-respected, and for good reason. You should respect him too.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right, drama is bad. Look at how much drama Quale caused you with that ANI about me. I'm just going to drop the idea of an RFC and move on. As far as chess.com goes, it's not a bad chess server to actually play chess, but the problem I saw there is the administration actively protects trolls and losers that aren't there to talk about chess, but are more into their own inside jokes and feelings of petty superiority. As long as one stays off the forums on chess.com, its a good site though. Oh, and they are totally lying about their membership numbers. It's nowhere near 6 million as they claim. I hope all is well. OGBranniff (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That's good (dropping RfC/U). Thx for explanation about Chess.com, but it doesn't explain how you got so down on them. (Did they do something?) Re drama, Quale didn't cause me any drama. Editors make independent decisions here and take responsibility. (Quale decided to open an ANI; I decided to follow-up with two Admins. Indenpendt decisions, not cause–effect.) If a decision turns out bad an editor accepts it and doesn't excuse or blame. (Like how Bobby Fischer answered what he does when he loses a game: "I take my medicine.") Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

ICCF champion

Hi, I have a quick question. I just wrote this very stubby article on David_Taylor_(Chess_Master). Taylor is a former ICCF champ and the author of the only book on the Ponziani opening that's in print right now. I actually know Taylor personally and have studied under him a bit. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and suggest improvements and how to better source it. I figure an ICCF champion is inherently notable. Thanks, OGBranniff (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

He was the 7th US Correspondence Champ, not "ICCF World Champ" (see ICCF U.S.A.#The US Correspondence Chess Champions). I think it's a significant achievement, but WP notability & RSs are a different matter. You've got "Chess Master" as part of article title, co-author Kieth Hayward is described as FIDE Master and Correspondence IM in the Ponziani book, but no title given for Taylor (other than former US Corr Champ). I haven't done research on Taylor, I'll try a bit time permitting. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Taylor never had a published USCF Masters rating. According to his blog his highest correspondence rating was 2538, but it wasn't permanent ("fixed"!?). I'm not sure what his ICCF title was. Are you still in touch with him? (He might know best sources for RSs after winning the 7th USCCC. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can email him for more information. I thought he had an ICCF title from his days as US Champ. I know that Taylor doesn't have a FIDE or USCF title (he peaked at about USCF 2190 or so) but ICCF titles are still "titles" in the chess world, right? Then again, I really don't have any personal knowledge about ICCF titles. OGBranniff (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, why are the ICCF USA champions not listed by year but rather in numerical order? Any idea? OGBranniff (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

He may have had an ICCF title, but I don't see him mentioning it. Terms were different then, you might get a lengthy explanation back. The ICCF-US website isn't very helpful to help understand. (I'll take a guess the reason championships aren't listed by year has something to do with that qualifying matches and their playoffs each take multi years to complete, so they're overlapping. But even then the year qualifying matches start could be a way to identify them, they seem not to choose to do that, I don't know why, I'm sure Taylor could shed some light.) In any event, your article should be moved to "David Taylor (chess player)" to fall in line with other player bios.

p.s. When a postal player I once faced a Ponziani, if I remember right it was in my game with Corky. I had a real hard time with it as Black--tactically complex--and ended up with a lot of respect for it. I see Corky is now a a Director. Too bad the draw in Taylor's 13–½ result was his only Ponziani, but I played over that game, White had chances, players castled 0-0-0 and it was in no way boring. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

OGBranniff, I was going to help you work on the David Taylor article, after you had moved it to David Taylor (chess player). I see now that Quale has done that. But now, you're blocked (not banned, there is a difference; you can appeal the block if you satisfy what the Administrators ask of you). I'll putz with the Taylor article, he is a good man & notable player, me thinks. Good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sluts

[15]--there was a brief edit war over that, followed by an ANI thread and some back-and-forthing. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wait: you know all this. Let's suppose that "hot sluts" means "women". Even if it doesn't, if OGBranniff likes to bang hot men, it's still not OK (though not, as I said at the time, by itself a blockable offense). Drmies (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're saying or suggesting I wrote or thought it was "OK" for Branniff to write "banging" any gender, then you are wrong, that is explicitly nothing I ever thought and certainly never wrote. You set an impossibly high bar as prerequisite for successful future RfC/U, then when OGBrainiff adds a swastika without explanation on his user Talk, which he later explained reflected his interest in Nazi history articles, apologized for doing it, and more than likely would never have reintroduced it after he was warned, behavior he successfully demonstrated after his warning re term "sluts", My God My God My God the house comes down. Your added drama at the ANI with "shit" and "fucking" were unnecessary and unbecoming of Admin. (I thought you Admins are supposed to calmly carry out your duties, avoid feeding trolls, and carry your conduct at a "higher [CIV] standard"!? Silly me.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Chess portal

I don't know. I didn't look at the page history to see who added it. I remember years ago when the chess portal was created I thought it was a good idea, but I didn't have any interest maintaining it and I wondered if it would stagnate. That's basically what's happened. I don't see that it has any real relevance to any chess articles, except maybe chess itself. Quale (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I try to stay out of giving other people advice, especially unsolicited. I respect your work on Wikipedia a lot, as I know you are serious about making it the best encyclopedia it can be. I'm sympathetic to the difficulties you've had with administrators and dealing with the drama, but I think that you generate some of that turbulence yourself. You tend to run hot, and I think you might find it a little easier and less stressful if you could cool down a bit. (This is advice I constantly give myself here, as I am prone to being a bit too zealous as well.) The OGB affair was unpleasant and unfortunate, and it certainly wasn't handled perfectly. However, whenever humans are involved we're not going to get perfection, so we should try to allow for that. I make mistakes too, and although I have high standards for myself I hope that other Wikipedians can understand my failures even as I should permit them some of theirs.

The OGB business is over (except for his socking). It ended with the correct result, and I think it's time to move on and look forward and not back. You attacked admins when they failed to block him and then attacked them again after they did block them. I'm afraid that to an outsider it looks like you will criticize nearly any administrator action no matter what it is, and sometimes it seems that you argue just to be contrarian. I think it's possible that some of the reasoning in the ANI discussion about OGB replacing of the WikiProject Germany flag with the Nazi flag in a user box was imperfect, but the consensus was strong that it was a bannable offence particularly when combined with his earlier behavior. I didn't find out about the discussion until after the ban was enacted, but I would have been comfortable to go along with the consensus as I think the behavior was egregious and deserved a ban. Instead you needed to stir the pot. If you want to reduce drama in your wikilife you should consider leaving some discussions alone, even when you disagree with some of what is being written. Quale (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, and I didn't take OGB's defenses at the ANI about the Nazi flag as genuine for a second. But the processes of evaluation here, are inconsistently applied, and dysfunctional. (The bases for sanction or no sanction are based on whim or like/dislike, not anything objective. Who can feel "safe" in such an environment? I certainly don't. My comments provide me some relief: "The King has no clothes." The readiness to do me harm here reveals more about the WP environment than anything about me. If no one says anything when inconsistency or dysfunction shows itself in favor of mob rule or subjective exercise of power based on like/dislike, then how or why would or could it ever change for the better?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC) p.s. It's not my purpose to be a martyr, however. I've already had an indefinite block. Quale, you haven't. (So, can you really know what that feels like? To be in position of having been permanently blocked, with Talk page access and WP Email access removed, by an Admin, because he/she doesn't like you? So I've already been abused here. And I don't like seeing others abused. And looking around, there's a lot of that going on here.) When I stir the pot, it is in rememberance of my unjust block, and an Administrator going out of his/her way to bury me six-feet under. I don't think you've had to face that, and cannot therefore really understand what the experience is like, and how it might change someone's relationship to the environment here, which in my view, threatens everyone (except Admins of course, who know their status is safe no matter what they do or say). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have lost motivation recently, it has just evaporated. The drama of facing hostile Admins has taken its toll. (They clic together, and seem to not think twice about making a content contributor's life miserable, if you've annoyed one of them. Their Admin friends will be more than happy to make your life miserable too, given or manufacturing the opportunities. That's abuse of power, as well as nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is not here for Admins to form clics and feel superior taking out grudges against content editors, but, they don't give a heck. So the culture is dysfunctional and sick to that degree. Admins pat themselves on the back if they block an obvious vandal, and somehow that seems to make them feel justified in treat a regular editor like crap if they want to, because of the other good they do or have done. Power goes to people's heads, unless they are thinking types, I don't really mean to stir anything, when I challenge others the purpose is rather to ask them for better thinking, or defend their thinking as already good. People don't like to be challenged. (Is that my short-coming, or theirs? I'm open to anyone at any time challenging my consistency or thinking, if I'm wrong or proven wrong, I'll admit. Just like you, I accept that I do make mistakes. No one is perfect.) The characteristic about ANI is that it has the worse demonstration of thinking and dysfunction, that Man has yet invented, short of mob rule. I continue to avoid anthing to do with it, unless I've been involved and feel compelled. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a thought: ANI is bad. RfC/U is nothing more than ANI in a different form. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is a joke. (Too many egotistical volunteers, not there to help the encyclopedia through dispute resolution but for their own egotistical purpose of experiencing the high of believing they have some power and are "in charge". WP:Etiquette has been gotten rid of. The Tea House is for newcomers. Where does that leave regular editors for when they need help? From random Admins? Who exercise their power how they feel and are seldom countered by any other Admin? (Fun for them! Do anything you want to, to whomever you want to!) Where does someone go here who has a legitimate content dispute, or is on the receiving end of behavioral issues? From what I can see: nowhere. It's chaos in RiverCity, and mob rule at ANI seems to be the best there is, and, that's despicable! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In short, my unjust indefinite block changed me. (It's not all negative; I have positive feeling regarding Arbcom, as they lifted the block without condition, so rationality overcame personal prejudice. So I have positive respect for Arbcom in my case, and I don't even know who were the Administrators involved.) But I'm not "living the past", there are currently several Administrators that even recently have shown desire to help do me harm, in some kind of retaliation for hurt egos or whatever. (See OGB's solicitation of two Admins he figured wished me ill, and their cooperation to some degree, although not full degree, since OGB was such a radically obvious troll. [What if he had been more discreet!?]) Fair or unfair is not the question, whatever damage can be imparted to me is good in their minds, smearing someone with unfair and indefensible comments is also "good". This is my reality at WP, a function of the hostile environment and nothing I'm responsible for. Until those Administrators leave, or I leave. But Admin status is for life, and they like that. (Perhaps the current Admin structure should be scrapped. I would leave that decision to the top 10-15 content contributors, who should be put in charge.) Humans are a-moral creatures generally and have a need to punish and abuse one another, because they can, because if feels good to dominate someone you don't like, and even crush them. It's shallow and tacky, but the reality. We are still in Medieval times. With little change or improvement.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

OGB's parting comments were correct IMO ... Was there any logical reason the ANI against him failed regarding his "sluts" posts, and the ANI re Nazi flag resulted in swift indef block? (He already had a block for incivility. That could be considered a warning. His sex-basesd offensive posts received only warning. So, his "sluts" posts, and his prior behaviors, were also cumulative, and should have resulted in *something*. But they didn't, beyond a warning. Then the Nazi flag posts, brought the house down.) Is someone supposed to make consistent sense of this? I can't. (Here's another example, I was chastized by Admin for "baiting" when asking OGB for answer why he redacted the Nazi posts, but not the "sluts" posts. Well, one of the participants at the ANI re Nazi flag asked OGB "why do you consider women sluts?", and "why did you create 139 sockpuppets", when there was no factual basis to assert either of those two things. Was that user chastized for baiting? No.) This type of environment is called "crazy-making " by professional psychologists. When it exhibits itself, saying something about it can also be helpful to keeping one's own head straight. (And contra-wise, not saying anything is right down the line what leads to acceptance and resignation. I do not think the environment at WP should be accepted by anyone, and I don't think silence and acceptance have ever been impetus for changing anything anywhere at any time. I'm not the only editor pointing a finger at the inconsistencies of this place. There are several others. I think there needs to be lots more.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a wall of text, something else that I think affects your interactions with some Wikipedians as people can find that taxing to deal with. I won't even try to respond to it all, but just throw out a few final thoughts.

You mention that your comments at ANI provide you some relief. That's actually good. I feared that it mostly caused you stress, but that may just be projection as I don't enjoy those kinds of interactions. Heavy involvement in those forums will lead you into more conflict, however.

Secondly, you point out that administrative decisions are inconsistent. That is certainly true, and although greater consistency should always be a goal, again this is a human enterprise so perfection is not possible. I think it's more productive to accept some inconsistency and focus your energy in other areas. Specifically in the Drmies case you might see it as an overreaction as a kind of CYA given his earlier defense of OGB. But maybe you can look at it in a light more sympathetic to Drmies. A warning instead of a block was well within administrative discretion. You and I both thought a block was justified, but I at least never argued that it was mandated. I did think the reasons Drmies gave stunk—had he instead simply said that OGB's actions were blockable but he was going to try a warning first, I would have accepted that even if I didn't agree with it. It was the lawyerly bs about other infractions weren't recent and generally editing within accepted guidelines that honked me off. Less of an excuse explanation would actually have been better. Anyway, back to the sympathetic view: Isn't it possible that Drmies reacted in a very human way? Having given OGB a second (or third) chance and then having OGB pull the Nazi flag stunt might make one angry, and explain what could otherwise seem to be an overreaction.

Finally, I hope that your experience here never becomes so bad that you leave permanently. You are one of the most productive chess editors active today, and have done a great job on many articles including glossary of chess. Although I think this is one of the most important chess articles, it doesn't get much attention from most of the other chess editors so your work has really helped. I try to keep a close eye on the chess articles, and you are one of about five or six editors whose edits I almost never check because I trust that they will be correct. You should feel free to take time away from Wikipedia whenever you need it. Fairly often I disappear for a week or two, and once I took over a year off. Quale (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thx for your comments, Quale. When I write lengthy Talk text, there is always a reason, and the reason can vary. And I don't take the care to simplify (shorten) it, as I would a text paragraph in a mainspace article. (That takes work, and keeping things short is a talent others sometimes have naturally, I don't, it is work for me.) As you know I despise ANI, and only unusual circumstance will ever produce a post from me there. I don't expect 'perfection' from Admins, but I do expect them to conduct themselves at a higher standard. (It seems the reverse is true many times, they feel a lower standard is their right, because they have power culturally unchallengable due to "the code of the Admin corps", and power corrupts, so they do & say whatever prejudicial thing they want or that pleases them. They have also caused a great divide of resentment between good content contributors, and the tight-knit Admins who are friends. I've been on the tacky side of that, it is part of the shitty environment at WP that makes editing unpleasant. [For proof, see Admin Basalisk's recent bullshit against me.]) I still see the pissy-weak result of the original ANI against OGBranniff as a result that I (Ihardlythinso) was involved with that user, and I'm not liked by the Dennis Brown clique of Admins, which Drmies is part of, so there you go. That is IMO. (Drmies compared me to his toddler children and commanded "Grow up!", direct insults to my personal maturity. How in this universe is that not seen as personal attack according to the definition of personal attack on WP? How? Yet as Admin, it is okay, because he is governed by a different standard than the rest of us, and as Admin, he is incapable of error. [Did you see him admit to any error? I didn't. All I saw was that when OGBranniff affair accumulated an overwhelming community consensus against him at the 2nd ANI, Drmies saved face with those editors to re-dress his previous involvement with hyperbolic ranting over the swastika OGBranniff placed in Userbox without comment, and for which he officially, if in-truth disingenuously, apologized. It was pure ass-covering and he doesn't get my sympathy, especially after threatening to effectively ban me from chess-topic articles over a trolling newbie.])

What perpetuates the bad culture here is that Admins (Admin AGK = exception) do not want to risk their own permanent Admin status or reputation challenging a rogue Admin, and the ineptness of community to implement Wales's "easier to get and easier to lose" proposal. So a great rift has formed even before my time here, as mentioned above. If anyone wants to give me crap, which seems to be the thing to do in this tacky culture, they'll find me reacting accordingly, as someone rejecting this awful environment and unwilling to be tainted by it by adding the dumbed-down shallow "values" (templated thought, e.g. WP:BOOMERANG, WP:TLDR, WP:CIV) here to my value system. "Civility" exists in name-only here -- the searching for "bad words". I'd advise Administrators wanting to exercise their power to intimidate and control others out of their corrupt sick selves to just leave me alone and go join the other crap-fest parties going on at the WP all the time all day long. Then they won't get any flak from me. (An Admin sees a conflict automatically as two people are equally responsible. Even if one of the conficting parties is a WP:Randy. That is the easy route, the one which makes them look "in authority/in charge", the one which takes zero research and sorting out, and afterall, isn't it more fun to chastise and order two people to "knock it off!" or "grow up!" than merely one? [Sure it is.] Or isn't it more fun to sanction the experienced editor with the cliched Wiki-logic "he should know better"? [Yeah right. But Admins are excused.])

I had a stiff cup of Seattle's Best coffee, if this sounds like a rant, I'm blaming that. ;) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion over on Talk:Chess960 starting position

Here's what I wrote to a chess publisher..

First Roll: The King Roll a 1 through 6. In chess960, because a rook needs to be on either side of the King, the King has only 6 possible squares. These squares are B1 through G1. If you rolled a "1" the King goes on B1, a "2", the King goes on C1, and so on, all the way through a "6" representing the King going to G1.

Second Roll: A Rook The efficiency in this method lies in the fact that the piece which we're now placing is determined by where the previous piece (or pieces) have landed. If the King has been placed on B1 or G1 you may now place the Rook in the adjacent corner square, since one Rook must be in the corner now, to make it a legal chess960 position. If the King has been placed on the left side of the board but not on B1, you're now going to roll for the left-most Rook. If the King has been placed on the right side of the board, but not on G2, you're going to roll for the placement of the right-most Rook. You'll notice that the Rook we're rolling for must have either 2 or 3 available squares. If 3, you roll low/middle/high for its placement. If 2, you roll low/high for its placement

Third Roll: The Queen The Queen has 6 available squares at this time, thus you roll 1-6 for its square, each available square representing 1-6 left to right

4th Roll: A Bishop The remaining squares will have a spread of either 1 of 5 squares being dark or light, or 2 of 5 being dark or light. If either color has 1 remaining square, place a bishop on it and go to the 5th roll. If the spread is 2 and 3, Roll high low for the color of square that has 2 remaining. If you roll low, place a Bishop on the left-most of this color. If you roll high, place a bishop on the right-most of this color.

5th Roll: A Bishop or a Rook You now have 4 empty squares and depending on how the previous squares have been filled, the board will now be configured in one of the following 5 ways: the Rook has one legal square; the Bishop has one legal square; the Bishop has two legal squares, the Rook has two legal squares, or at least one of the remaining Rook and Bishop have 3 remaining legal squares. If either piece has 1 legal square, place it, and go to roll 6. If either piece has 2 legal squares, roll high/low for it. If either piece has 3 legal squares, you can roll low/middle/high for either piece and go to the 6th and final roll.

6th Roll: Your final non-Knight and the two Knights are placed You'll have either a Bishop with one or two legal squares or a Rook with one, two, or three legal squares. If either have one legal square, place it and place the two Knights in the remaining squares. If the Bishop is remaining, it has two legal squares; roll low/high for its legal square. If the Rook is remaining, it has two or three legal squares; roll low/high or low/middle/high for its remaining square, and place the two knights in their final squares. Dancindazed (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In Roll 5, I don't see how it's possible, for a rook to have only one legal square. (I believe, at a minimum, it will always have two.) Please give example where the rook has only one legal square.

Maybe I'm getting confused, but ditto in Roll 5 for the bishop. (I don't see how it can have only one legal square.) Please name example of that.

Maybe I'm also getting tired, but I cannot even see how in Roll 5, the bishop will have only two legal squares. (Right now I believe it will always have at least three, sometimes four.) Please give example where the B has only two legal squares. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: Okay, forget that one. (I found example, with B having only two squares.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was seeing things. (I still don't see how the B has any less than three available squares.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right actually. The rook Can't have one because there has to be at least 2 squares empty on the opposite side of the king, and the bishop can't have less than 3 squares to place on, because you just placed the bishop that had the fewer squares which leaves only 3 or 4 for the final bishop.

5th Roll could say:

5th Roll: A Bishop or a Rook You now have 4 empty squares and depending on how the previous squares have been filled, the board will now be configured in at least one of the following 3 ways: The Rook has 2 legal squares; The Rook has 3 legal squares; the Bishop has 3 legal squares; (note: both could have three legal squares). If the Rook has 2 legal squares, roll high/low for it. If either piece has 3 legal squares, you can roll low/middle/high for it and go to roll 6.

There that is much more concise. Thank you. I may have done that with some of the other rolls, because again. I was just laboring the point that 1,2,3 or 6 possible squares for a piece can be rolled for. Dancindazed (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay let me analyse your new 5th Roll language. Meantime ... Regarding the case in Roll 5 when there is 3-3 tie, I believe you are right, it doesn't matter which goes first (placing R, or placing B). The deal is though, it is intuitively weird, since (as you say) if the R is placed first, then in 2/3 the cases, it leaves the B with 50-50 chance of landing on c1; but if the B is placed first, it has 1/3 chance of landing there. But my instincts tell that is an illusion. (The big problem is, this hauntingly reminds me of the Monty Hall problem, and, most arguments there are way beyond my probability skills to comprehend. So that leaves me with zero confidence that I can tell you you're right!) What to do? (Maybe a math guy from Monty Hall dialogue could help!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In your new Roll 5 language, you don't have anything mentioning about selecting the piece with fewer options, as you did before. (So, in the case e.g. of Kc1, Ra1, Qe1, Bg1, the B has four legal squares, and the R has three, but you imply in your language the B will not have four legal squares, and as mentioned, you threw the "fewest" compare out.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Right because if there's only 3 possible scenarios to look for, that's probably easier anyways. Rook has 2 squares, Bishop has 3 squares, Rook has 3 squares. Pick one of the three. Doesn't matter. (going to revisit the math on that one scenario, too..) Dancindazed (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So you have 3 squares for a bishop. The rook shares two of the possible squares. You place the rook first and you have a (let's use a common denominator) 4 in 6 chance of landing one of the three squares. so question is, is choosing the rook first increasing the chances of the Bishop going to c1.. hmm.. doesn't the 4 in 6 just get split in half again when you look at the one in two. So if the averages work exact.. 2 out of six times playing the bishop first, it lands on c6. if you play the rook first, 4 of the 6 it lands on g1 or e1, then 2 of those 4 it lands on c1 instead of the remaining black square. so that leaves 2 out of 6. the other 2 out of six you land on h1 with the rook, and then, ahhh, that's where the odds are increased. Because you already have your 2 out of six just if the Bishop land on g1 or e1 with the rook. Then you get another third of the 1/3rd (1/9th) from the times the rook lands on h1. So the chances when playing the rook first that the bishop will end up on c1 are actually 4 in 9 instead of 1/3. Hmmm that's a pickle. The Bishops do need to stay at 1 in 3 odds so I think it's only sound if the Bishop is placed first in the 3 and 3 scenario. That makes it perhaps, too complicated at that point. Dancindazed (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't your first 2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3 = 33% straightforward? Really though, the Monty Hall problem is so perplexing, and it scares me if it has a presence here. (So I have to bow out giving opinion! It's over my head.)

If you choose to present by listing possible conditions, I guess you need some language naming them the relevant conditions (or something), otherwise it might confuse someone thinking you're listing all possible conditions, and missed one. Anyway, I think the language could be worked on for simplification and clarity. (Are you interested in that?) But I think resolving the potential Monty Hall thing might come first. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3 isn't the whole equation. You're forgetting that the other 1/3 (when the rook lands on h1), the bishop has a 1/3 chance of landing on c1 there too. so it's (2/3 * 1/2) + (1/3 * 1/3) basically.. It actually does affect the overall odds of the 960 positions a bit. the bishop is going to end up on c1 or f1 a little bit too often or less often if the rook or the bishop is always done first in the 3 and 3 scenario. If somehow the rook could be rolled for first half the time, and the Bishop could be rolled for first the other half (or selected by a 1 in 2 chance randomly which goes first) then it would recreate the balance. You could say something like if the Rook is on a dark square, roll for the rook now. If it's on a lightsquare, roll for the Bishop now (the two mirrored positions will balance each other out) but it gets messy. The only way this scenario can occur, I believe, is when the first rook got placed on a1 or h1 without a roll, so you could always roll high/low for which gets placed first, bishop or rook, and that will still be 6 rolls. Kind of ruins the beauty though. Will check back tomorrow.. Dancindazed (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What about this analysis? ... The position is Kd1, Ra1, Qb1, Bf1. (Three squares for the B, three squares for the R.) Ok, let's say the R is placed first. Then only these are possibilities: Re1/Bc1, Re1/Bg1, Rg1/Bc1, Rg1/Be1, Rh1/Bc1, Rh1/Be1, Rh1/Bg1. (That's 7 possibilities, and in 3 of them, the B ends up on c1.) Ok, what if the B is placed first? Then only these are possibilities: Bc1/Re1, Bc1/Rg1, Bc1/Rh1, Be1/Rg1, Be1/Rh1, Bg1/Re1, Bg1/Rh1. (That's 7 possibilities, and in 3 of them, the B ends up on c1.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah you're right in that scenario; The Rook pretty much has to be in a corner, but the King doesn't have to be on b1 or g1 so you will have taken 4 rolls already by now. But don't focus too much on any given's piece's odds of ending up on any of the squares left available. Alls that matters is that before any piece is placed, do any of the 960 chess positions have equal opportunity to be placed? And now that I've slept on it, they do, even with the 3 and 3 scenario. I think it's fine to say always roll for the Bishop or the Rook first, the fact that one or the other scenario is more likely is simply an outcome of the rolls that got us here, it's not an outcome of any given position being favored by the rolls. Placing the Rook first in that scenario does definitely incease the Bishop's chances of ending up on c1 though. It's 4/9 instead of 1/3, I'm pretty sure of that. Dancindazed (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

{{{1}}}Dancindazed (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more I feel like whether or not you roll for the Bishop or the Rook in this scenario needs to be random so as to not skew which starting position will result. The skewed odds of the ending positions possible are only a result of the events that have already occured, so that in itself is not affecting the randomness of the results. But handpicking which piece you now roll for, or always rolling for one piece or the other in this scenario does skew the randomness. I'm inclined to say Roll 5 would need to be modified to where it says something like this.. "a 1, 2 or 3" represents the first second or third square for the bishop, "a 4, 5, 6" represent the first, second, or third for the rook. Or you could say "1,3, and 5" for the Bishope, "2, 4, and 6" for the Rook, if you like odds and evens better.. Dancindazed (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Whelp, it pains me to say this, but our discussion has led me to realize that my entire method is flawed. And the conclusion came from trying to figure out why the bishop3 rook3 scenario occurs. Look at the first 2 placements. In my method, the first two pieces placed MUST be on the same half of the board. This gives a fixed chance that the queen will be on the same side of the King as 2 in 6 or 1 in 3 (there's always 2 squares empty on the same half of the board as the King and 6 total empty squares) after the first rook is placed. However the correct odds should be that the queen has a 3 in 7 chance of being on the same half of the board as the King. The "rule of the fewest" is fundamentally flawed. The Rule of the more needs to be followed to preserve complete randomness. And thus, 5 or 6 possible squares must be a possibility and re-rolls are probably needed with a six sided die. Oh well. I'm glad I figured out I was wrong. Dancindazed (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit, this is confusing. Take the case Kb1, Ra1. Time to roll for the Q. You can look at the board and say there are six consecutive available squares, and the Q has equal chance to end up on any one of them. Or you can look at the board and say there is only 1/3 chance the Q will end up on same side of the board as the K. (But somehow I don't think that latter argument makes sense.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It does make sense. The Queen, when she's placed, needs to have all 8 squares as a possibility when she's landed. It's okay to do the bishops before the queen, but you have to do both bishops before the queen. If you went in this order, say DSB, then Q, then LSB, you'd be messing with the Queens chances that the queen will be on a dark square. I thought it was okay to do the King and Rook before the Queen but it's not. If you had equal chance of placing either rook, in random order, then it would be fine; randomness would be restored, and all 960 positions would be equally likely. Or if you did both rooks before the queen. But when you're messing with the symmetry; when you're always placing a piece that's on the same half of the board as the King before the Queen, you're by rule, going to end up with a higher chance that the Queen will be on the opposite half of the board as the King. Dancindazed (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

New Method

Hope you don't mind me spamming your board :) but what about this, in light of the above, since the rule of the most should be followed, you start with King, (still if he lands on b1 or g1, place the rook), but if he lands on any other square, you then go to the bishop that has 3 squares left. Then go to the queen. Then, one of the following scenarios should be true. If: the last bishop has 3 squares available, roll for it. If: a Rook has one or two legal squares, place or roll for it. then roll for the placement of the rooks, which must each be down to 1, 2, or 3 squares on either side of the king at this time, and finally place the two knights. I think this new method works and leaves no choice of piece anywhere. Dancindazed (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem already, KC1, BA1 (Rook must go on B1) you can't do the Queen next, because now it has 5 possible squares. You have to do the other bishop 4th now, then you're left with 4 squares which all the remaining pieces could go and you're stuck. so fooey. I give up. Dancindazed (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Because you deserve it...

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For being ultimately awesome. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel. I think well of you, too. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Mentoring User:Georgia guy

Hello. I am just here to inform you that after having been contacted by several concerned individuals, I have decided to come out of retirement to "mentor" the troublesome user "Georgia Guy." I have over eight years of experience in successfully mentoring and rehabilitating troubled users on Wikipedia, such as one of my earliest successes with my pupil User:Maoririder. My name is Thorkill, but you can call me Thor. And Georgia Guy is about to say "hello to Thor's Hammer," possibly for years to come... Edits such as this even after my mentorship commenced last week are troublesome at best. Thank you. Roxette Fanatic (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Maoririder is currently indeffed. How is that a claim of "success"?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI page

Ihardlythinkso, I have noticed that you recently posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki brah. However, your comment has restored comments that have already been archived, re-activated a request for a CU check that has already been performed, and changed one link (which is now a redirect, so that doesn't matter very much). I'm not sure how to deal with this, so I'm just letting you know about it. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the mess. (Was attempting to leave a comment. What to do now? S/ I revert comments and re-do? Is the thread permanently closed?) Won't do anything further unless you say to. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

references

I like the way you separate references into Notes, Citations, and Bibliography. I think someone gave you some heat for doing it. Years ago I used to put footnotes and bibliography in the same section, until someone said that I shouldn't do that. So then I started putting them in separate sections until someone criticized that (or it might have been the other way around). I like the way you do it with the semicolons - sort of in-between, but better than either alternate. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bubba. It's how User:Malleus Fatuorum does it, he's top writer w/ many FAs. I'm taking British Motor Syndicate and Robert Tatton as models to learn from/follow. (But I haven't got down yet some of the citation techniques, a separate but related step really.) Malleus prefers three ticks for bolding the Notes and other parts of Refs section (at first I thought this identical to semi-colon for bolding, but then I discovered a little superior difference, so I use the ticks now). p.s. I think Quale feels the citation style is too fussy for small articles, but as above you can see that Malleus chooses same for even a tiny article like British Motor Syndicate. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles with a lot of references, citations, and notes needs this more than ones with only a few. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (I just quoted you, sorry for the trouble — you don't have to comment there.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Solved now. Thanks for your help and friendship. Best wishes, DanielTom (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hi IHTS. Feel free to ignore me or tell me to mind my own business, but if you're in a position to listen to a little well-intentioned advice - please drop it. Yes, the ANI thread was inappropriate. Yes, the link was also inappropriate. Everyone reading the thread can see that you were unfairly accused. The problem is that you now appear, to my eyes at least, to be attempting suicide by admin - the only reason the thread hasn't been closed already is because you keep adding to it, with increasingly angry and vitriolic statements. I'd suggest you just step back, let the matter drop and maybe take a few minutes out from Wikipedia to catch your balance; have a cup of tea or something. You aren't doing yourself any favours by imploding on Wikipedia's most heavily-watched soap opera board.

Like I said, take the advice or discard it; it's meant with the best of intentions. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, "suicide by Admin???????????????? Why do you have to express things that way, so violent, death, suicide, hanging??? It isn't good and you should find some other sort of professional way to express yourself. Next, I didn't ask you to come here, I find your poking me offensive and uncivil. I don't need your advice, anymore than you think you need mine. Your templated thinking, in my view, is a dumbing down, and offensive as well. You have no right to suggest I need "tea". You have no right to suggest I am emotioally out of control. That is presumptuous, and wrong, and uncivil as well. (YOU go have some tea! I think you need to. [There! - How do you like it? Aren't we making progress now? That's the Wiki-way!])

"The only reason the thread hasn't been closed already is because [I] keep adding to it". Bullshit, Yunshui. Total bullshit. (How do you have a truth on that? How do you think you know that, and can tell me it as though fact? It is pure guess, and an extremely poor explanation, one that you have whipped up in order to find a cause to tell me something. I will tell you why that thread has not been closed, I will give you my guess, which I feel is vastly superior to your attempt to shame me, here it is: No one cares. [No one cares, because it isn't them publicly falsely accused on the board. It isn't them with their username in the ANI thread title accusing them falsely of misdeed. It isn't them feeling this. So they don't care. So when there is apathy, there is also inaction. No call to act. So the thread stays open, because it takes work to close it. And humans are generally "lazy" - it is the prime motivator in our world.)

"You keep adding to it, with increasingly angry and vitriolic statements." Hardly, Yunshui. I kept adding to it, with ... questions. And explanations, why I felt it was not cool, and to let people know (apparently they don't think about it) what it feels like to have a completely baseless thread open on ANI about them, and the thread, which should be closed immediately, stays open, with total disregard to the false accusation which took place, with total disregard to the inappropriate use of ANI, with total disregard to the fact opening an ANI thread with no valid basis might be offensive and uncivil.

"Everyone reading the thread can see that you were unfairly accused." I have no idea how you think you know that, or how you think you can say that. There were no words stating that by anyone, and, it would take a small "investigation" to know that or show that, and, that takes at least some amount of "work". (To go through the article edit History, and the user interactions, if any, or to discover there were no user interactions.) Because that stuff takes some amount of effort, Yunshui, and because the world's most powerful motivator is laziness, it is fair for me to assume the vast majority, if not all readers of that ANI, would not do it. And what remains, is the false accusation on my username, without any statement -- by anyone -- that they are unfounded and untrue. (So how you ever reach the conclusion or belief that "everyone reading the thread can see that you were unfairly accused", ... I have no idea how you do that. ANI is a very public board, and as a rule people are lazy, and remember only the surface what they see, and what they saw there was that user Ihardlythinkso was guilty of "persistent" deletes. That is what sticks in this very public and political environment: misnomer, misapprehension, misunderstanding, prejudice, and so on. All of it is a negative for me, and no attempt to correct or fix is present in that thread. Except from me.)

"You aren't doing yourself any favours by impolding on Wikipedia's most heavily-watched soap opera board." I reject your "imploding" comment, Yunshui. It is mischaracterization, it implies emotional-out-of-controlness, rather than reasonable frustration over the things I wrote about in that thread. ANI is a cesspool without my help or encouragement, long before I came along as editor. As a result, I have no desire to be there, or my username appear there, for any reason or context. No desire. But when I'm involuntarily and unfairly and counter-to-policy named there, well, ... it pisses me off. (And Yunshui, my pissed-off-ness is measured, I do not "implode" as much as it services your desire for it to be, so that you can give simple-minded and unsolicited advices and councels.) And regarding my "not doing any favours for [myself]", think about that for a moment. (You think I've done a "misfavour" to myself. In what way? I wrote what I wanted, and expressed what I felt was needing expression and explanation. So for me, I was "favorable" to myself. So what are you referring to then? Is it about what "others might perceive of [me]" that you fear so much for me and need to councel me about? To protect me from others who might take a disliking to me because I said something truthful they didn't like?! Oh my, oh my, yes, I should follow your advice and be totally paranoid, and never speak my mind, because of what others *may* think, and knowing what they think about what I said is always accurate, and their subsequent responses to me always fair. Oh yes. Oh no. The truth is Yunshui, your advices to shut up and never speak what I really think, less others do me harm after misinterpreting it or turning it into something I never said or meant (as Dennis Brown tried to do in an adjacent thread), is not the kind of "advice" that does me any good. (To please you, Yunshui, I should devoid myself of person, become a complete paranoid, never speak my mind, and just ... what? (Shut up forever!? Go back into the womb!?) Please think what you are really advising me to do, and whether any self-respecting person would take your advice, to censor their independence and mind. For me, all this templated thinking of "stop beating a dead horse" and "too long didn't read" and "have a cup of tea" and "BOOMERANG!" and "death by Admin" and "stop digging a hole" and all of the mimes and cliches that have become a standard repertoire in place of thinking, a plastic toy set in place of human interaction and thinking, is nothing more than a laughable dumbing-down of the human mind, and those particpating in it, as though those cliches are a virtue instead, and represent community process that is good and right, is some kind of weird abberation in the development of human societies, and mark my word, someday someone will write a book about it, or more than one will, and show for all of future history how lowly Man can descend into and create for himself a shallow, abusive, secretly and overtly hostile, inherently unfair, and superficial culture and sense of right and wrong community "norms" to judge others by and threaten them with. (I say: Fuck it! And Yunshi, that is not "imploding", that is keeping my thinking unadulterated by the trappings of this place, which I've repeatedly summarized as "dumbing-down", and, I am not wrong about it.) I don't give a shit if you agree with me or not, or what you think of me or not. I already know what I think of you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. You can already see I have a User category: "Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian". You should perhaps think about that.

Did it ever occur to you, that maybe I don't want anything to do with the ANI cesspool? And that when a false accusation of persistent deletion behavior with my usrname attached is inappropriately venued at that very public board, I might have a valid grievance!? And then to be threatened on top of it, and insulted, with supposition that my comments were out-of-control emotional implosions and that I was "seeking death by Admin", isn't somehow antagonizing!? (Jesus!) Then after leaving numerous hints at the thread that I would like to see it closed ASAP, I'm told I "only have (myself) to blame" for it remaing open!? (Jesus again!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I fear that you have misinterpreted my message (both in content and intent) but based on the above, I don't think attempting to clarify is going to be a productive exercise for either of us. I wish you all the best, and I'll stay off your talkpage in future. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, I found your messages accusatory and indirectly threatening. Please understand two things: I've been unfairly indef-blocked before, with WP Email unwarrantedly also removed, in attempt by an Admin to bury me 6-feet-under, permanently, out of what I believe was simple egotistical retribution for my responding sassy to his Admin authority. And, there are friends of that Admin, who have already demonstrated to me they would love nothing more than another opportunity to block, or contribute to my block. Ditto my having criticized Dennis Brown, his "Admin-friends-network" has been consistently hostile and threatening to me as well, even though I have done nothing to them, only because I have been critical of Dennis, popping his bubbles on occasion. So they target me with their hostility and threats if given the slightest opportunity to do so -- I am not stupid or paranoid or blind to it. (Dennis, of course, would deny the reality of the existence of this, but that would be total BS, wouldn't it. The Admins-friends-network is as real as it is hostile.)

As a result, my motivation for editing (improving or creating chess-related articles), has taken a huge hit, and I'm sure will continue diving even lower now. (For me and I believe many other editors as well, the great demoralizer to editing isn't the trolls or vandals or Randies, it's the hostile Admin environment and culture. Power-centric Admins who somehow feel the encyclopedia is here for their power-tripped egos. How sick and wrong is that?!.)

I overreacted, and I'm sorry for kicking you off my user Talk. It was an overreaction at the end of a stressful day. You are welcome here. (And you are right -- I need a break from this crazy-making place. Watching my motivation ebb is one way to take that break, when it reaches bottom there is no will to edit anything. [Think of the irony involved: Dennis Brown initiated "Editor Retention Project" to retain editors, yet as a result of his pride and his vengeful friends, they demoralize this editor to nearly the same as quitting. For it has been hostility from two groups of Admins-friend networks, his being the most responsible in my case. And someone can just fuck off if they want to tell me I'm paranoid, or imagining it, or am to blame, or am not "employing AGF", or saying so is an irrational "screed", "rant", "diatribe", or any other similar cliche-word people love to bandy about here irresponsibly in service to their need to maniplate, predjudice, and shut down independent thinking in favor of mob rule. "BOOMERANG!" Got you! And what the fuck is WP:TLDR about?! Illiteracy!? If someone doesn't have time or interest to read something they should just go cuddle up with a comic book, or something, and quit complaining someone isn't spoon-feeding them. Think you're safe?! You, by disagreeing with me about anything Yunshui, have demonstrated clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing behavior. When I'm Admin I will block you and you will never be let out of that cage unless and until you grovel and confess and show us all to see how you understand your sins have have repented. An Admin I'm familiar with calls that "the usual deal". When it is really institutionalized humiliation-abuse.])

To show my thoughts are not completely negative, I'll say again, immediate reform is to do what Jimbo suggested, make the bit "easier to get and easier to lose". And for long-term, the highest-respected content contributors need to be put in charge of WP growth and maintenance. (Only they truly know what is best for articles. The politics would go, or at least be subservient to article quality, and this nutty hostile & abusive Admin environment would be a thing of the past, because most probably that team would elect to disband or radically alter the Admin corps on Day No. 1.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I'm still welcome here, then I'll take the opportunity to offer my sincere apologies if I came across as threatening or accusatory; neither intent could have been further from my mind. I saw an editor that I respect (I don't edit board game articles much nowadays, but when I did, I recall that you always seemed to be doing good work) apparently getting extremely irate - with some justification - and in doing so, perhaps worsening the situation for himself; all I was hoping to do was to ameliorate things somewhat. I'm deeply sorry if I seemed to be threatening you or telling you to shut up and leave the big boys of the admin corps alone, this wasn't what I was trying to say at all, although on re-reading I can see why you might have taken that as the underlying message. My heartfelt apologies for inadvertently worsening the situation for you. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't like this place. I love the articles, and I loved editing chess and boardgame-related articles and creating new ones, and I loved collaborating with other editors with similar and values about article quality being priority. (So, tell me how I benefit from Admins?! I already have experienced numerous times, how I am degraded and demoralized because of Admins' pompous and self-centered power-centric ego-tripping hypocritical behaviors. Tell me how they service the content editors?! Because it is really a mystery to me. Why do I need to be on the bad side of Admin:TParis? Admin:Drmies? Admin:Basalisk? Admin:Bbb23? User:Guy Macon Admin:The Blade of the Northern Lights? Admin:Elen of the Roads? Admin:Magog the Ogre? They have each at times made my life miserable as editor here, and I have initiated nothing uncivil with them. What makes for this lovely environment? It is hostile. It is nasty. It is manipulative. It is mean. It is abusive. It is disingenuous and dishonest. It is tacky. I have no interest in the shit-politics that runs rampant in this place. I'm here for the boardgames articles. I don't care what others think of me, though I would prefer them to think well of me. I would like all the assholes to just leave me be, get out of my Wiki-life, stop with the tacky crap. Yes, I need a break from this God-awful place. It is no fun editing anymore. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Taylor

Nice to hear, Vanilla -- will be great to see Taylor active online. Maybe he is in position to improve ICCF U.S.A. article, too.

I was gonna say, even IP sockpuppet has been nicer to me than have Admins, and not disingenuous. But don't do nasty, it is not my style. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to remarks

On reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toccata_quarta#Edit_war.3F, I found your response most interesting, as I have also run afoul of such an admin, though have collaborated with other, decent ones. Hushpuckena (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hushpuckena, nice to hear from another player. Though WP "rules" are chaos, yes, there are decent Admins. E.g. I had positive experience w/ Admin:AGK, Admin:John, Admin:Courcelles, and complimented here Admin:Reaper Eternal. Recently, Admin:Dennis Brown accused me of having opinion "all admin are scum" -- not only was that a vicious lie, the word "scum", though it is in my recognition vocabularly, is not a word I've ever used toward another person, nor would I. (Because it devalues a human being, to mere matter. Which is about as base a thing to say of another person, or group of persons, as can be imagined.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Board game

My bad. I forgot to paste the content in. I've redone the merge, and actually put the content from the "American board games" article into Board game now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's called being WP:BOLD. If there's no discussion either way, then either just do the merge, or just leave it a separate article. I think it should be merged, but it's clear that no one wants to discuss it either way. Why do you think it should not be merged? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Funny. Not once in the 7 years that I've been here has the "discuss" part been useful. Every time, either no one says a damn word, or everyone says something totally different, and we just go around in circles without anything getting done. And you think now a discussion will magically make anything all better? At least I'm getting shit DONE instead of just jabbering away for ages without anything happening. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not responsible for WP protocols that you see as failures. To say "discussions aren't useful" and "discussion = jabbbering" is as far counter to WP philosophy as one can get (so, I can't back you up on that attitude, sorry, IMO you'll have to take out your frustration some other way than how you are doing). I've read over & over on the Wiki "there is no deadline", but you seem to think opposite, or at least you show extreme impatience. And how do you ascribe "getting things done" when what you do is DESTROY CONTENT with your sneaky REDIRECT on ICCF USA and another REDIRECT which did the same today? (If you have a deletionist mission, which I suspect you do after reading your 8 failed RfAs where many editors called you "deletionist", then to you I suppose "getting things done" = content deletion. You could have put your advocacy for merge on the tail of the article Talk discussion, and argued for consensus for your change if no one cared to contend with your plans, and gotten the merge done that way. But you didn't do that, you circumvented process, either out of extreme impatience, or, bullying (not wishing your objective to be contended with in discussion). Not good. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Chess article

Hi! I was just wondering if there was a better way to make the Chess article more gender neutral? I feel that the use of "he" and "him" seems to assume that players are male, which is something that should be avoided according to WP:MOS if possible. I tried to make my edit productive and tidy, and I'm not sure how to improve the article. Also, please ignore my "no apparent reason" editing history--my internet is running quite slowly and I wasn't able to see the editing history thing properly until after I had saved my edit. Sorry about that! Cheers, The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC).

I don't agree with what you are doing (making blind changes of occurrences of "his" to "his and her", and "he played" to "the player played", which are both bad writing). There has been much discussion on this already, at WT:CHESS and Talk:Antichess. (Have you read?) If you want to work collaboratively on a specific instance of "his" at a time, I'd be glad to do it with you. (Here is fine, or article Talk.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't understand how you could do a revert, without seeing an edit sum of the edit you're reverting, for reason "computer slow". (How does slow response time hide the edit sum of an edit you are reverting?) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think your edit entry was in my notifications (I didn't check--is it a new feature? I don't I've seen it before), but I couldn't see much of the History page and I noticed that my edit had been reverted and got a bit annoyed so I didn't wait for the page to finish loading. Ah, angst. It causes so many awkward moments. The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay ... Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

...You sound very skeptical, although that might just be your username... Anyway, I might start a new section on the Talk page of the Chess article. The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Here it is -- The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course I'm skeptical. (Everybody should be. I prefer it to be called "conscientious editing".) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

A big 'thank you' to all the Admins who might have bothered me recently, but chose to leave me be. (Thank you! [My spirits re WP editing are ... picking up a bit. Much appreciated.]) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

More nastiness. Motivation to edit anything = near zero. (Someone called me a "hypocrite", a "mother-fucking asshole", and a "drama whore" in an Email, who's considered 'one of the nicest Admins' around here. Go figure.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't say much about emails, we have to take your word on it - you can always send an email to Arbcom on an issue like that, but I can't help but believe that deep down you would agree that those who have a chip on their shoulders about admins could/should at least comport themselves as they would like the ideal admin to behave - not saying that I am the ideal admin either, and I sometimes lack 100% diplomacy, but I do my best;). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What I think is that your suggestion that a user who's been mistreated by admins as DanielTom has been mistreated, should "comport themselves" more perfectly, in light of certain Admins' aggressive and incivil behaviors (example: Bwilkin's comments against DanielTom at User talk:Bwilkins#DanielTom), is quite absurd to say the least. (Those admins s/ clean up their act, but, that won't be happening under the current WP organizational stucture. I really feel the hypocritical, hostile, abusive culture here is too corrupted to be salvagable, the "community" is too passive to do anything about it. That's fine for them, it is why I have WP category "Wikipedian who is not a Wikipedian" - I reject this place with its dumbed-down double-standards and abusive environment & culture. [You can have it. It sucks big-time.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you reject it, then leave it. That said, you've done an enormous amount of good work here, so why do you keep getting embroiled in this conspiratorial madness against admins - there's no smoke without a fire. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Funny, it all started with being blocked Kudpung, then INDEF'd, by the admin who recently removed DanielTom's user Talk access (same as he did to me, and later removed my *Email* access without justification). (Maybe you didn't know that.) So it wasn't my choice to "get embroiled" and pulled into the muck around here. I was taken into the muck early on outside of my will or desire. [Have you ever been blocked, or INDEF blocked, Kudpung? Didn't think so. It's easy to cook up the Qs you are, when you haven't been there.] When I see others mistreated or unfairly treated at WP, it is a present reminder how I experienced the same, and, I end up not liking it very much. So I might make a comment or two. No one helped me when the blocking admin was attempting to tighten the screws on my coffin and bury me 6-foot under. (Except later two specific Arbcom admins and another admin offering help, and of course whomever unknown Arbcom admins adjudicated my appeal case.) Thanks for the compliment re my contributions to-date, but truthfully?: I feel I was only beginning here. (My editing improved in only 1+ years to the point where I was even disgusted with my first editing work, and have been going backwards to attempt to address those edits even today. I've enjoyed the improvement process, and I can extrapolate that I would continue to improve, and I know I have more articles to contribute. But motivation is required, and at this point I lack any motivation as a result of the hostile environment at this place. [Nasty, hostile, dysfunctional, abusive.] It does make me sick.)

I have no idea what your "no smoke without fire" reference means, but if it is an accusation you want to make, please don't, I have nothing I feel I need to defend again. (That said, I'm not clear why you've come here to my Talk in any event; you know don't you, I did find nearly all your statements to DanielTom's attention both upfront prejudicial and patronising. [Your "bluntness" would be more acceptable, at least to me, if there was a hint you thought the environment deserved some fair criticism, but there doesn't seem to be any of that coming from you, look how you suggest DanielTom "comport himself" with greater perfection, before Admins pay any attention to fact their behavior is supposed to be governed by a "higher standard".] I don't know really what you hoped to accomplish by that. So I can tell by your statements to DanielTom, that I would disagree with you on a great many things. And nothing is likely to change that, since both our value systems were already established long ago.) It doesn't help me to receive an invitation or suggestion to "leave WP" as you have given. Please turn your efforts to something less negative and productive, instead of buzzing around DanielTom's and my head. You apparently support a environment and structure, which I've already made plain I think is diseased and has resulted in a culture of hostility and abusiveness. I don't see you doing anything about it; I have tried to speak out where and when I could in a small way. Hundreds more need to do the same, but that won't happen, at least for many more years.

Take care and good luck, you seem to have a successful and prosperous RL, congrats on that. (WP seems to me, the electronic equivalent of "road rage". In case you wanna understand, I'm not against incivility necessarily, just the hypocriticality of having a CIV policy used only by whim of Admins to block whom they want to block, and a pillar representing that much misaligned policy that is made of salt.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is fast heading for the fate of the dinosaurs and the reason is because it's growing so fast and filling up with so much crap content and lousy collaboration that it's hard to keep on top of it, and it's mostly the fault of the WMF who are only interested in stats rather than actual quality and harmony in the (volunteer) workplace. In 10 years, maybe less, people will be saying 'Hey, d'you remember that Wikipedia thing?' We have enough admins but we don't have enough; like soldiers in the numerous support corps and offices (7 to every one combat soldier to be exact), there are many admins who never approach the front line, they do a lot of necessary routine work in the background without ever getting noticed, leaving only a handful of us to tackle the controversial stuff and take the flak, and every kid who gets reprimanded by one of us screams blue murder 'Mommy, Mommy, the teacher yelled at me!' Mommy actually realises that the kid had misbehaved and probably tells him so, so the kid rounds up all his mates in the schoolyard and starts a hate campaign against all teachers. Ironically really - where would we be without schools and teachers? When they have growed up and gotten their own PhDs they neatly forget all that. Has anyone ever spared a thought for all the bullying the admins receive from the 'ranks'? That said, I got interested in admin stuff because I got threatened with a block by a cast-iron prat of a sysop and bullied off everything to do with linguistics (my professional field) by another for ever. There are indeed some badmins, take a look at my RfA, at least the most spiteful liar and obtuse individual I ever came across on Wiki and came out of the woodwork to oppose me there has since been desysoped, and plenty more lose their bit too, but they mostly stem from pre 2007 days where all you needed were 2,000 edits and 30 support votes. That's not the case here in 2013 though. Have faith - what I tried to do about it was to start the biggest ever campaign for RfA reform in the hope of getting more active admins and better ones. Ironically it was torpedoed mainly by the very people you cite in your collection of quotes on your user page - perhaps you should look into the background of those statements more closely and then concentrate more on your excellent contributions to chess matters, it would be more productive and less negative and I doubt anyone would want to bully you away from it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for opening up to me, Kudpung. I'm heartened to hear you've had some brushes w/ authority here. (It can be a common point of reference. But I'm relatively new user compared to you.) I need to review your para above again, and read your RfA also. I still think you are prone to collective overgeneralizations (biases, e.g. "every kid who gets reprimanded [...] rounds up all his mates [...]", etc.). The quotes I've collected are more for enjoyment & relaxation (e.g. George Carlin and Archie Bunker didn't torpedo your RfA reform initiative, right?), and also, for inspiration re celebration of the WP that diverse and even sharp opinion is permitted here, and not suppressed as might a more totalitarian community. [Although WP is no democracy, it still needs free flow of ideas if it is to prosper.]). Thanks again for your backstory experiences, I need to go over carefully/thoughtfully and think about. Sincere, & thanks again, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. What do you think of my idea to put the top content editors in charge? (A team of 10-15 top-voted content contributors, to be given responsibility for organization structure to best maintain and grow the WP? [IMO they know what's best for articles, and therefore, the encyclopedia, which is nothing more than the sum of its parts.)

I'm actually quite famous for my collective over-generalisations but I refrain from collective ad hominem attacks. Those who perceive them as such are the ones who read wrongly between the lines and take them out of context in the hope of claiming they have been insulted by an admin ;) Unfortunately, among the top 10 content contributors are some of the top 10 culprits of totally unprovoked incivility, personal attacks, and disruption of some of our most important processes, and sadly, because they are great contributors, they are generally allowed to get away with it which sets a precedent for those who are not so clever with words. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you're speaking of Malleus, he is always provoked. (Always.) But I think you miss my point ... If top 10 contributors were put in charge, there would be no basis or motivation to disrupt anything. (It goes without saying this elite bunch love writing and articles. Put them in charge and the collaborative decisions from that body could not harm anything related to article quality nearly by definition.) Radical restructuring might result. (Maybe no CIV policy. Maybe no independent Admin blocks. Maybe no Admins. I don't know what. They would work it out.) I think it is a powerful and positive idea mostly because of its simplicity and tapping fundamental motivation/psychology. (IMO the result would push forward the best possible encyclopedia, whereas all other alternatives would introduce quality-impacting compromises.) Ihardlythinkso (talk)

What I am saying is that some of those top 10 editors with whom I have not exchanged a word in a couple of years (for knowing that it's not worth a bean trying to reason with them) have not ceased, purely unprovoked, to insult me to my face and behind my back with lies and PA. I have shown more intelligence by not responding. I certainly would not relish the though of them being in charge of Wikipedia and if they were, I would rapidly find another hobby in spite of being dedicated and travelling around the world to meet Wiki people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by talk page stalker: Ihardlythinkso, perhaps you may like to join Wikipediocracy or Wikipedia Review. I don't have any experience with those websites, but they show that there is a fair number of editors who share your views. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=WP:UP#POLEMIC

Friendly advice IHTS: WP:UP#POLEMIC (thought you might be interested). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung, you've got some implied message for me it seems, but really I don't know what it is. And I've been reading more of your posts, and have grown increasingly uncomfortable with your tendency to form overgernalizations and combine them with accusations. (So, I have no basis for really thinking you wish to be truely "friendly" towards me, about anything.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

David Taylor

Good afternoon, and happy Memorial Day weekend. Sorry I haven't been in touch, I haven't really been on the internets that much in the last few week, plus I am preparing for my seasonal move up to NYC for the summer.

I have news on David Taylor. We have been in contact and when I said we at Wikipedia would like a photo, he took it literally and has assembled something of a package for us, with 2 photographs and a sampling of his "best games." I guess it is my fault that I did not specify "computer picture" or .jpg or whatever. He wants to physically mail this stuff to me. Being the much-despised "troll" that I've been branded I am kind of skittish about giving out a mailing address. What should we do? Do you want me to ask him if it's ok if you take it from here, as a senior Wikiproject member? I can tell Dave is super interested in this and is quite tickled at having a Wikipedia article about him. Regards, Andrea. (that's my real name)Super Snooper77 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Andrea! I see David's already got a digital photo on his Chess.com profile, however he did that, I think he should just be asked to do the same with his preferred WP photo (or two). And ditto his games, should either be loaded on Chessgames.com (I suppose but don't know for sure, that Chess.com might be adequate too.) (Someday I'd like to get his Ponziani book autographed and sent to me paper-mail, but that's a different time & purpose!) So just tell him to get this stuff online (I think). (Then we'll need his SA-CC-3.0 license permission, if he wants us to upload to WP for him.) Best of luck vis-a-vis your migration East. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I was thinking that I couldn't make those major changes to the article myself anyway, since they'd be reverted by Dreims or someone. I told Mr. Taylor someone else with more standing on Wikipedia would contact him concerning the photos and scoresheets he arranged. Could you please contact him at ponz111@aol.com and explain to him what you want to do? I also asked him if a friend (you) could have an autographed copy of his Ponziani book so feel free to ask him about that when you contact him as well. Thanks. Super Snooper77 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll write him soon. (And *pay* for his book on PAYPAL!) ;) Did you get a bite of the Big Apple yet? Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I think everything will work out with David Taylor. And no, I'm halfway there, taking a roadside break somewhere high in the hills of western Virginia. Thanks for asking! Have a good day. Good luck with the article. Super Snooper77 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your excellent (and myriad!) chess articles, I award you this writer's barnstar :). Ironholds (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you or the compliment and trust (autopatrol), Ironholds! Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello (follow up)

Hi there! I hope everything is going well for you. I'm just following up on this David Taylor thing; did he respond to your email? Also, what is going on with this Daniel Tom stuff? What did Daniel Tom "do" to generate all this attention? Is there anything you want me to do? Thank you. Super Snooper77 (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been lazy lately, and demotivated (depressed really) due to the usual hostility & passive aggressiveness rampant in this place. But I'll be writing Taylor soon me thinks. DanielTom did nothing wrong what I can tell, except speak his mind. He doesn't even feel good about being here any longer, after an abusive block. How are your travels & adventures going? I will write Taylor soon when my motivation picks up (assuming I'm not lynched & blocked first), sorry, I promise. Take care, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC) p.s. Don't you dare do anything. (As I would be prosecuted for it, no doubt.) This place relishes and thrives on unfairness. (The more obvious and absurd, the better.)

Hi, thanks. I'm sorry to hear that. People that have a long track record of making productive content edits like you should be left alone by the admins. Kind of like a "tenure" system. Ok, I won't do anything to inflame the situation, I promise. Although I have already posted a couple responses to your question about SPI's. And as far as the question about multiple Wikipedia accounts in the same household, there is a policy on that already, its WP:SHARE if you want to check that out. And I'm doing well, thanks! Super Snooper77 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Mistake

No problem. Given the similarity between my signature and Pedro's, I suppose that shouldn't be a surprise. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  17:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

silly chess variant ideas

Grue Chess: Let @ be the file to the left of a. Black has two extra pawns on @7 and i7 and grues on @8 and i8. Grues move as nightriders and can only capture pieces that are (1) not adjacent to another piece or (2) protected by a lamp. White has two extra pawns on @2 and i2 and lamps on @1 and i1 that move as wazir+alfil. Lamps can only capture grues and grues can only be captured by lamps. Grues cannot capture lamps. Other than that, rules are as normal. Double sharp (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting! I need to think about that! (Q, though: Was this inspired by Stealth Chess!? If not, what inspired? [Fess up!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Playing way too many Infocom text adventures, mostly. Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Another idea:
Moving Square Chess (I need a better name for this): Instead of moving a piece, you can move a square occupied by your own piece to a square where that piece could go. If more than one square is stacked on a position on the board, ranging pieces passing through that position can go through any one of those squares (but only one). They have this choice at every square-stacking junction. Positions where there are no squares are voids. Ranging pieces cannot attack through voids, but pawns pass right through them (promoting on the last non-void square on each file) and knights can jump over them. Squares can move outside the 8×8 area of the original board; pieces cannot go to voids unless they are riding on a moving square. Double sharp (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Huron

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Huon&diff=564728784&oldid=564701134

Please do not misspell user nicks. Although I hardly can think of it as of a WP:personal attack, it is certainly inappropriate. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you would have just corrected the spelling slip, and informed me of having done so, I'd have had no problem with that. If you would have come here and simply informed me that I made a spell error, I'd have simply corrected it no doubt, no problem. But you dropped a blue-linked "WP:personal attack" here as some sort of reminder or indirect threat, and called the simple spell error "inappropriate". I'll tell you what's really inappropriate: your above message. So please go away, and don't come back. (It's editors like you that destroy my motivation to continue adding content creation on the Wikipedia. Too much fucking hostility and threatening behavior. A sick culture. You're part of it. Go away.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Although you insulted me, you was the first person who caused me to meditate about the corrupt ochlocratic governance of this wiki. Now I quit; have a good luck to stay here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If I was a bit harsh, sorry. Please understand, I've had my own problems on this site (including indef block), hostility and abuse abounds, and I've grown pretty much sick of it. Malleus (Eric Corbett) was/is right: "The way to avoid 'incivility' is to avoid the triggers for it. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)". If you see corruption at WP, it is just evidence that you are smart. Good luck and sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Unachess

Is Unachess a notable variant? I would prod the article, but I thought I should ask your opinion first. I will also ask User:Anthony Appleyard, as he created the page. Quale (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Q. Unachess is covered in:

• Pritchard, D. B. (2007). "§9.4 The initial position is partly or wholly free • Unachess". The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. John Beasley. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-9555168-0-1.

and

• Pritchard, David (1995). "Isolated Pawns • Unachess". Variant Chess. 2 (Issue 17). British Chess Variants Society: p. 151. ISSN 0958-8248. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

... so I'd say yes (notable). (Interesting: "By April 1995 there was a consensus that White should always win with reasonable play."! Pritchard (2007), p. 79.)

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Likely WP:NN here depends on how popular Unachess and its variants prove to be. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks to you both, that's perfect. I personally consider inclusion in Pritchard or Beasely to indicate notability. We should get those refs into the article and I am satisfied. The bit about White having a strong advantage would be good to add too. (I understand that there will be some new variants that won't be in Pritchard but that are still notable.) Quale (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

apology

I was remembered today that I do owe you an apology. I am sorry. The way that I responded to you in email was very very poor. I used vulgar and crude words ... and I should not have done that. I was wrong. I stand by my thoughts, but it was very wrong of me to express those thoughts the way that I did. I am sorry that I spoke to you the way that I did. — Ched :  ?  19:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ched, perhaps you're missing my view, the issue was never about my feelings hurt or not (as my reply Email should have shown). You are Admin, and to vent personal attacks as you did is 100% inconsistent and hypocritical when having the bit. (The point being, to be consistent and not a hypocrite, you either zip your lip of name-calling when you choose to vent, or resign your tools.) Thank you anyway though. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor

I wrote Ponz11 on his Talk and also sent a WP Email. (Waiting to hear back.) Re VisualEditor, I turned it off; I have too many years in IT not to recognize poor design & testing. (It s/ have gone thru the fire first; it was rolled out maybe several years ahead of its time. Perhaps WMF marketers couldn't wait. Fine but there's a price [lots of flak] that comes w/ that kind of haste.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

this is your talk page why did you say not here?

You are reverting changes related to chess. What I do not understand is why you are concerned with niche pages if you yourself are not a chess master/player. Also Zimbeck is much higher rated than Zilberminst. h6 is not an unknown transposition into the zilberminst line. Zimbeck is one of the first players to develop its theory. A search on chesslive.de will show that. A google search on him will show that he has been discussed and cited frequently such by other players/puzzle makers, Brian Wall, other analists. It is not a primary source. His work was cited in the most recent book on the blackmar diemer. His book was self-published on Lulu. That still makes him published. The book itself was reviewed on Chessville.com and many copies sold. Hes friends with all the strong players in the US and could get a publishing deal if he wanted but decided to self publish. The site you keep referring to as a blog is not a blog. It is a site that has entire cbf databases on the openings and has sold 1000 of copies. That would make him a very reliable source. He is a published author, who sells database, is a senior master, a puzzle maker who was close with the late Edgar Holladay, Milan Vukcevich and Dan Meinking as well as being published in strategems, the problemist, die schwable and EG. Your reverts are abusive and illogical. Wish to be civil about this but if you have a vendetta then please discuss. If you are not an admin or a chess master yourself than why do you keep editing chess articles? William Aramil and Tony Rotella and Eric Schiller get publishing deals and each one of them are lower rated than Zimbeck. Zimbeck is also published and well known just because he has not been playing that actively does not make him unknown. Look at the recent result in Vegas past 2 years he almost won the North American Open drawing 3 grandmasters. I wish to discuss the changes in a civil maner. You said not talk here but the BRD article said to discuss here. If this is not the correct place to post give link or email address. Thanks. 166.137.88.42 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm supposed to reply to this!? Redact your insults and I'll consider it. (Otherwise, piss off.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I see your page says you published a puzzle in the cleveland gazette or whatnot. If you have anything to do with ohio you knew who I was all along. So why are you calling me an unreliable source? Have you looked at the changes I was making? They are minor. If I insulted you, I am sorry but I am trying to reach a resolution I have advanced theory in the gambits. I have given the citations to scheerer. Furthermore, the Halloween page you dont even cite wind or minchev. Somebody claimed Krabbe was the reliable source but thats not true. The Krabbe article sites Wind!! Also, the game featured there was played by two players under expert strength. How are they reliable sources to make a claim of a refutation? Shouldnt IM Wind be cited on the Halloween page? If you are from Cleveland Ohio you know who I am. Not trying to insult you, but who are you and why do you insist on these pages being outdated? 166.137.88.42 (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

IP - I understand your frustration and appreciate that you are trying to discuss this civilly, but the fact is that the source you are using simply isn't a reliable source. Blogspot is one of those sources which can never really be used for anything other than biographical information. I have semi-protected the article. Please discuss the changes you want to make, but bear in mind you're going to need more than that blogspot source. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

How is this a blogspot source?? www.zimbeckchess.com is not a blog it is a website that has been running for 8 years!! The blog is supplimentary to the fact that I have comiled a database on the Englund Gambit. I know Zilberminst. He is my friend on Facebook. Who are you? Why do you insist on keeping lines outdated? I have many, many times explained what you have on the Halloween drops a pawn for white. You list a game Gaillard–Platel which was played by novices. That is not WP:RS!! Even the comments on the game talk about Qb4. Please, I beg of you, why do you insist on keeping these lines outdated? Wind is an international master. You did not allow me to cite his material which would link to the UON aricle which is no longer hosted. That was a pdf ebook. It was also self published. The Tim Krabbe site only has one page. Why are you holding my material to a different standard. Zilberminst is lower rated than me. I have personal letters from the late Edgar Holladay my work was accepted into the Cleveland Public Library I won Strategems 1st prize which is the top puzzle magazine in North America! How is a selfpublished book not reliable when I was published in over 4 magazines for my work? I was on the World Composing Puzzle Team for USA. Have you seen www.zimbeckchess.com? I know who you are I am certain of it. There is no way you can be associated with Cleveland and not know me. Even if you do not like me do not hold me to a different standard. Gaillard–Platel is not WP:RS 166.137.88.42 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:RS to get some idea of what sources are considered reliable. Websites authored by one person and devoid of an editorial team are not considered reliable. Even if it is, you are still edit warring over this, and that's not helpful. You've made a change and it's been challenged; now you're discussing it which is a good thing, but you've also got to stop trying to force the change in until this is resolved. I note that you're adding this source in other places as well. Please stop doing that. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for helping, Basalisk. (The IP doesn't understand WP, I wanted to do what I could, but couldn't/can't get through the accuses & bullying.) I prefer he register his concerns at article Talks not my Talk, so other editors can participate. I don't know why he seems not to comprehend WP:BRD and WP:RS. At this point I'm feeling frozen so again thanks for your involvement. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You are holding me to a different standard. Krabbes page has no editorial team. You are personally seeking out my edits and deleting them in a niche field in which I am one of the only specialists. The Zimbeck site has been cited through other sites. Its not a primary source I can send you links of referrals. It has thousands of hits from all over the world its not unknown. You can see from my world map on my hit counter. That would qualifiy as a reliable source. How could you say I'm not reputable? I'm in the top 50 in the usa for rapid chess. Here is the link http://www.uschess.org/component/option,com_top_players/Itemid,371?op=list&month=1307&f=usa&l=Quick%20Rating%20Top%20Overall&h=Quick%20Overall. The Game Gaillard-Platel is not a reliable source it was not played by masters. You are not an admin, why are you rejecting changes to these pages. It does not make sense. Do you own these pages? You know who I am if you are from Ohio. Also, feel that you are the one edit warring you have undid my revisions over 3 times how did you not get blocked? Especially when my first post on the halloween, you deleted in your talk page and said "not here". I tried discussing with you yesterday. 166.137.88.42 (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If you look over sources used for chess material. They use chessville.com who I know the owner of the site who actually reviewed my book that was published on amazon and lulu. I have been published in magazines, I feel I am not the one warring I was correcting a very outdated page I can see that baslisk is an admin. Which is fine, but I feel that Ihardlythinkso is warring and being possesive of a page that I am getting exclusively ousted from. I am being held to a different standard despite being one of the top players in the United states. I am a reliable source I do not think Ihardlythinkso has the same qualifications I do. The site was accused of being a blog when it is not. The link to the blog was a secondary link from the website both of which have been sited. I have had editors in the past for magazines such as strategems or problemist or dieschwable. I am not warring I am correcting an eggregrious error. There are other sources to support my material such as IM Wind whos link was listed in UON. Zimbecks chess puzzles was reviewed on chessville which ironically was used as one of the sources. I can send a link to verify this. 166.137.88.42 (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please look over the sources cited on chess articles. www.jeremysilman.com tim krabbes site others these are also websites and chess is not always cited throught published books. Besides, I am published as an author in which my book has been reviewed by the chess community and positively. There is this quote "Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." So I can show links to collaborating sources that also wish to make the same edit I am claiming. Such as IM Wind or even the source that I tried to change in itself Gaillard–Platel my edit was actually recommended in the comments section point out the unreliability of the game that was cited. Any website which features games should not be considered any more reliable than my website. Or if you wish, I can just use a citation to some of my games on sites that host games. I personally do not see why it is necessisary that I am being held to a different standard when I am an accomplished master/player. Ihardlythinkso is not an accomplished master and a player so he is the one warring. He has no personal site on the subject nor does he have a reliable source that would qualify him as an expert editor in my niche field within chess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.42 (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Some responses (section for me only)

• "His book was self-published on Lulu. That still makes him published." Not on WP it doesn't. (See WP:USERGENERATED.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• "His work was cited in the most recent book on the blackmar diemer." Great! Then cite that. (You didn't do that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• "You said not talk here but the BRD article said to discuss here." No it doesn't: "If you have reason to disagree with the explanation given, or you don't see any explanation at all, start a new discussion (section) on the article's talk page to request an explanation for why your edit was reverted, or to present your argument. You may also wish to ask the editor directly on their user talk page." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Zimbeck is [...] well known just because he has not been playing that actively does not make him unknown." No one argued he is "unknown". Rather whether his work passes WP:Notable or WP:RS for inclusion in WP article body (WP:External links might be fine though due to lesser criteria for that section). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• "So why are you calling me an unreliable source?" Never did any such thing. (Even if you are Gary Kasparov, you can't add material to WP chess articles on your say-so; must meet WP:RS citation requirements if challenged/challengable.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Have you looked at the changes I was making? They are minor." Oh yes. The context of this add (boldened below) implied that the Halloween Gambit is a sound opening:

  The theoretician Oskar Cordel reported in 1888 that Leipzig club players used the opening to dangerous effect, but he did not believe it was sound. [...]

  [...] After 4...Nxe5, White usually plays 5.d4 (5.f4 does nothing for his development), after which Black can retreat the attacked knight to either g6 or c6. Recent analysis by internationally renowned puzzle maker and master, David Zimbeck, has breathed new life into the opening showing that it is playable for white.

  (Gosh! I wonder what any GM might have to say about that contention!? Is this a new revolution in chess opening theory, 4.Nxe5 is now considered sound in the Four Knights Game!? Or perhaps are you misleading every English reader on Earth who might innocently read that chess article with your own POV!? The contention that 4.Nxe5 in the Four Knights is currently held by theory to be playable/sound is no "minor" contention.) You lost credibility with me with that add ... both as player and editor. It was sufficiently convincing that you possess a strong non-WP:NPOV and were/are pushing it in the article. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Continuation of IP comments

• Maybe you should talk to some GMs and ask about me. The self-agrandizing comment was removed and I did not really think it mattered to credit myself since I am one of the only ones to have analysed it this intensely aside from Wind. Maybe you should have looked at the content rather than judging my personality. Wikipedia is about content and you are not the judge of that. You should look at my site. Look at the beautiful puzzles I created. You should look over the analysis with a computer. You should notice that I am not the only one that points out that the Pinski line is not a refutation. You are afraid of being wrong. The Halloween is sound in practical chess. If god was to play who knows and who cares. But Houdini vs Carlsen and Houdini has the white side and my analysis I will take my analysis any day. That is why coorespondence is usually a good citation. But really look over the puzzles and the analysis. It really is a work of art. If you care about chess you would do it. But I think you care more about not being wrong. You insert POV that it is refuted. This is a lie. A very very obvious lie. I would post this on their talk but I seriously dont care. I care about the beauty of chess and of my own work. If I wanted to be a GM I would have been but its not an ego thrill for me. All I care about is the beauty of the game and I believe my puzzles express just that.

Also it is a neutral point of view to say something can be played. Playable means not winning losing or drawing. Just playable. The Krabbe site agrees. Its you that does not and you push your POV with a dusty old Kaufman line. He got awarded his GM title because he won a tournament for old people FYI. His line is dusty and old. You should actually sit down, look at the analysis and just undo your own revisions yourself. But I have a feeling you know me personally and I even think I know who you are. I have a few guesses. The non-neutral point of view is to insist something is traditionally refuted when I supplied evidence to the contrary. You insist that something is refuted in a way that it is not. This is not WP:NPOV it is very biased. It is YOUR point of view. You are not a grandmaster. If you were you would have looked at my revision in your head. Or if you were, you would have looked at my site. Krabbe himself says he would be interested in playing it. Winds analysis was improved on by me. If you look at the analysis you will see that Houdini thinks everything I came up with is sound. Its sad that you will miss out on analysis so beautiful just to push your POV especially when it drops a pawn read your link on the game. Someone else mentioned Qb4 as an obvious "DUH" sort of move. Its like casting pearl before swine. You will stubbornly keep a line on the page that is a lie. Until you look at the analysis on my site you will be blind to the truth and thus you will promote your own POV which itself is untrue. 166.137.88.42 (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• The website is a reliable source. It meets the wikipedia requirements. If wish to continue the I think you should also remove Krabbe since his site is self-published by your standard he would not be a valid source. Neither would Jeremy Silman or many others. 166.137.88.42 (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That citation is a confirmation of David himself being reliable. However the Diemer is a different variation in chess. Scheerers book is here http://www.amazon.com/The-Blackmar-Deimer-Gambit-fascinating-Everyman/dp/1857445988 Where David is one of the few people he gives credit for on his book. David himself is a reliable source in chess. I have already listed my credentials. ALSO THE SOURCE CITED IS NOT THE BOOK ON LULU AND NOT A BLOG. The source cited is a WEBSITE that sells databases. It has been accessed from all over the world. It is just as reliable as the other Masters who have been cited and also have personal sites. Ihardlythinkso is not a reliable source and should not be editing the chess pages. This is why the entry on Halloween is so naked. Here is another source confirming what I was attempting to change. The source is chess.com a very reliable source http://www.chess.com/blog/bobobbob/the-halloween-gambitrefuted this shows the same lines that I have already analysed in depth showing the pinski line is not a refutation. This can be cited in addition to my page just further drilling home the point that Ihardlythinkso is trying to control a page as if he owns it. Also Ihardlythinkso has used abusive commentary such as telling me to piss off therefore he is not discussing the dispute in any manor which is reasonable despite my detailed descriptions of the issue at hand which I find his behavior to be nonconstructive. I also think he has a personal grudge against me which I find to be abusive and nonconstructive because if he has ever had any contact with ohio he knows who i am. Also notice my revisions which I made multiple to my entry attempting to come to an agreement on the verbage of my changes. Every single one he has attempted to dispute. Thus more evidence of avoiding a resolution and warring. I am not an experienced wikiuser so the facts show I was constantly attempting resolution. I posted on his talk page before this and he said "not here" and did not respond to my first attempt at discussing I feel like he should not be allowed to control that page since he is not a reliable source and is just bullying the page. In order to achieve a resoltion I can cite the chess.com entry on the halloween to further confirm the reliability of my claim. I still feel non-chess players should not be interfering with chess pages. 166.137.88.42 (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In the future, I can leave comments on the talk page for the actual article I did not know there was one. I figured you talked about your page. The halloween and englund are gambits in which i specialize. I also speiciaze in about 10 other unorthodox gambits. I only added to these pages because I felt the error was egregrious. Also, the h6 line is Englund was a minor transposition to avoid Bf4 and not a major change it does not deserve a war. Even that information is incorrect Zilberminst even added his own opinions and was not corrected. I know Bf4 is good for white and the article states that black is fine adding some lines that my computer would assess as totally winning for white. I did not make such a claim. I only added a minor transposition with h6 which avoids that line. I can also cite games from chesslive.de where black suceeded in a draw using this exact continuation. Its a minor change please end the war and allow it. 166.137.88.42 (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It does imply I am a reliable source. I am a national master and published in magazines including chess life. I do not know why you are judging wether or not the material is reliable. It was proofed analysis with Houdini 3.0 on a computer running 16 processors that was used for proving high grade tactical puzzles. The website is the same as the other websites source. By that standard, you should just remove the page since Krabbes site would qualify as a "blog". Somebody else claimed he was reliable. Did you know one of my puzzles was featured by Krabbe and Harold Van Der Heijden? I am a very reliable source. And I read the article and I qualify as a reliable source. It clearly stated that reliable sources are not always mainstream books by large distibutors and if you play chess at all you would know that many chess players do not have big distribution deals on their books. Many chess information pages contain dead links and websites as sources. If that is your standard then you should personally remove all citations that link to self-published webistes. Please remove Krabbes site by your standard. I think you should read WP:RS again yourself. The page with Zilbermist line, I do not even think Lev is a master and he has a section named after him. Because he plays in New York? I have played and defeated Lev many times. To call my website unreliable is absurd and this discussion proves it. Either that or you should start removing ALL website links by masters in ALL wikipedia chess articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.42 (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

what you are leaving on the Halloween page is a lie

it is because people like you that the world has problems. You know there is a line that drops a pawn but you wish to possess all the chess pages. You allow sources that you yourself deem reliable which are equally webpages and you seem to have too much time on your hands that you are this compulsive about changing the material. Regardless of weather you found some other fool to agree with you. My material is already known I was only trying to correct a blunder. You know its a blunder and you lie and list it as a refutation because you are stubborn. You will live with yourself and liars like you will control pages this is why the content of so many things in life are low(not just chess). Because everyone can only keep up with the lowest common denominator such as yourself. So ban me. But don't ever forget these words. The world can not move at a pace faster than the lowest common denominator and the lowest common denominator lies. When you allow the truth, the world will be a better place. You will not say something is refuted when its not. You should really look at my analysis. Its very beautiful. I have worked on it all my life. You can allow a lie on any page but the one thing you can never change in this world is the truth. I will not be reading your response so don't bother. Just take it and realize you are the lowest common denominator. That you allow sources at your discretion because you do not like me. I will not be back to respond. Have fun with your page, it does not make you a better player but its all you have got. Until you stop lying. 166.137.88.42 (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"it is because [of] people like you that the world has problems." Please see WP:NPA. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"Persistent"

I noticed that inconsistency as well. When convenient, he claimed that Houdini is better at this analysis than a former world champion. Later, he claims that he can beat the engine at blitz and had to correct mistakes in its analysis. Those aren't completely in opposition but they do work against each other a bit. Quale (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That IP did make one good point though. If we want to make a well-substantiated statement on the current evaluation of an opening line, Euwe and Schiller are inappropriate authors to quote, generally speaking. Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Only "generally speaking" if there's newer analysis available in reliable sources. If we want to make a well-substantiated statement on what Euwe wrote about a line then he's the very best source. Quale (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Standards for chess articles

I really wish we had a guideline for chess players in Wikipedia:Notability (sports). I also wish we had notability criteria for opening lines and analysis. And I wish we had a manual of style for chess articles - I'd like to get rid of a lot of the linkspam we usually see at the end of most articles, for example. Also, I don't like the practice of giving illustrative games (or even just links to games) at the end of an article - either the game's significant enough to be incorporated into the text, or it should be deleted. Just some random thoughts of mine... Cobblet (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a lot of wishes! Thank you. I really do think all those points need collaboration what ProjChess wants, and a consensus formed, *but*, the ProjChess seems to me disinclined to enter same. So what we end up with is a garden with some great plants, but also lots of weeds. (I don't hope things will improve, because I don't allow myself to "hope". [And "wishing" = "hoping".]) I can understand therefore your bold actions to delete stuff, but, will those changes stand? Or will those changes be reverted? And what basis to discuss at that point who is right? It seems ProjChess is trying to float w/o clear standards, and I don't think that logically works, it has demotivated both me & you [but you seem to have got your mo-jo back!?; I'm only 3 years here so don't know you from before].) I think I'm more conservative than you and for me, the more info the better, but again, that aspiration of mine needs to conform to goals and standards for chess articles, and there's no interest to work on what those objectives or standards are exactly. Sometimes there is a precedent, like a predominance of something, but without standards expressed in as kind of guide, it always ends up as locking horns between two editors w/ different views. (And that isn't good because no Project-wide direction can come from that and the situation will repeat another time, another place.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there's reason for hope. I was extremely pleased to see the "Kingston Defence" article finally deleted, for example. And that one had a "source", too. Clearly people at least recognize the weeds for what they are—if we can come to a consensus on a set of guidelines for WP:CHESS articles, at least it'll enable those who have the desire to fix them. I'm also encouraged by the fact we've already got things like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/FAQ/Format. I'd be willing to be the janitor for chess opening articles, but admittedly there are few of those compared to the biographies.

ATM I'm working on the Modern Benoni article, but once I'm done with that, I think I might ask the community if there's any wish to create the chess equivalent of the MoS and Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Would you be interested in taking part? Cobblet (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh of course (taking part). But I wouldn't have strong voice re directions, only formatting stuff. There are several members of ProjChess who should need to participate in what you're theorizing, but as mentioned, I'm seeing lack of appetite for that kind of work-thought (and it really is). IMO it is very much needed. I think others like to float w/ only the few ProjChess standards there are (and gosh, it is only a precious few!). (A big undertaking, but isn't "sooner the better" logical? [*I* think so. But it's lonely.])

You're pretty much a "deletionist" and I'm pretty much an "inclusionist", so the sooner you're blocked the happier I'll be. (Kidding!) Anyway, the consensus at the Kingston Defence AfD was 'merge' I think, so as inclusionist I'm not supporting your removal of that Franco-Hiva line or other minor lines, but neither am I going to revert. To be redundant, the standards project you envision is in my thinking a prerequisite to the removals you're making, else it is same old tug-of-war stuff that gets nowhere (but at same time I can understand the boldness of the removals, since I do not believe ProjChess has appetite now for discussions necessary for said project). Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. If you think about the concept of "hoping", you'll understand it is the most passive human "activity" imaginable ... even sleeping is more active. (One's subconscious brain is busy solving problems the conscious brain couldn't solve during the day.) IMO, "to hope" always equates to an invitation to shut down one's thinking. (And that, is *never* good. There are always options.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That will be valuable as well—-we could use some good formatting guidelines. I just feel that having some standards would save everyone so much time. We wouldn't be wasting our time arguing with newcomers on writing 0-0-0 or O-O-O. We could send biographies of eight year-old 1900s to AfD without rounding up everyone for consensus first. Perhaps hope is not the right word... let's just say I'm optimistic we can get something done.

If removing non-neutral, unverifiable and original material makes me a deletionist, so be it! But I'm not interested in stirring up trouble. I just wanted to test the water—Wikipedia seems like a different place now, five years later. Also, I wrote most of that French Defence article... Cobblet (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree re "0-0" vs "O-O", but not re your notability assumptions re age and rating (notability isn't a function of those, rather achievement[s]). Of course having standards would save time & effort; but, getting there won't be a picnic (and participation may not be able to be generated at all in fact, sad if true). Hey I never said removing non-neutral, unverifiable, or WP:OR material is deletionistic. Of course I support removing same. What I've seen you remove are rather opening subvariations which you deemed excessive re breadth & depth for openings article coverage, and much if not all those materials had satisfactory RSs and were for completeness and not non-NPOV or WP:UNDUE IMO. I haven't really read the French article completely, but it must have taken a bit of work to write. Congrats! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. "Optimism" is vastly better and truly *different* from the vacuousness of "to hope". I've actually pretty much worked the word "hope" out of my active vocabulary (and that's hard since we are all programmed since birth to buy into it), as mentioned IMO it's never a help and always a potential detriment. Good job!

Thank you for your contributions!

Let me give you a Barnstar-worthy thank you for your contributions. In particular, I like the Trishogi, Hexshogi, Masonic Shogi, Space Shogi, Masonic Chess, Cross Chess, Triangular Chess, Tri-Chess, and Three-Man Chess articles. In terms of capitalization, I really don't care how we capitalize the names of variants. I think naming them with a capital in Chess is better and more consistent with WP:MOS, but it could go the other way. I was annoyed that Embassy chess became a redlink more than anything else, but I've already made the redirect. Samboy (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

30em or 35em

Hi there. I noticed you'd changed a {{reflist}} parameter to 35em on Go (game). Whilst I give you full credit for the edit summary, may I discuss such changes with you? You see, on my screen & resolution, 30em gives 2 columns, but 35 still gives just 1 column. So, people with slightly worse eyesight like me prefer 30em.

Of course, maybe there's no 'one size fits all', but I note that in the template info. it (mostly) refers to 30em, never 35em. It would be nice to have a guideline, I guess. Do you know of any? Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Please change back to 30em. (On my screen, 30em makes three columns, 35em makes two. I've "seen 35em around" [didn't make it up!], but yes, the recommendation is 30em, I presumed 35em was equally good and perhaps 30em was a bit out of date. But clearly that's not right, sorry.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

As followup am wondering why {{reflist|2}} isn't used more, or can it be? (That way both our screens would show 2 cols. My orig reason for 30em → 35em was that 3 cols looks excessive & silly, at least on my screen it does.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I've reverted it - actually sadly I had to go back a couple of revisions, as User Disori seemed to have mucked up the formatting somehow, in the Tactics section. Interesting that you get 3 cols with 30em. Guess you have a big screen - or very good eyesight? Either way, I envy you :) Good luck with the Chess & Go. Trafford09 (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, my understanding is that {{reflist|2}} is deprecated, as it forces any screen-size - even mobile phones, say - to show 2 columns, which renders itself rather poorly on such a small screen. Thus, 30em is preferred, as then the O/S fits in as many columns of 30em as it can, being guided by the actual hardware's screen-width. Not that I'd claim to know all about it! Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explain. (Seems like it s/b made into a preference option somehow, e.g. 30em = good for phones, but the 3 cols it makes on my screen looks a little crazy.) Thx again and sorry for causing the inconvenience. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Me again - not stalking you, but 'Board game' is on my watchlist! Just a thought: in this edit, I suspect it's unwise to change 30em to 2, for reasons as earlier. I.e. it forces every screen - no matter how narrow or wide, and regardless of screen resolution - to have 2 columns. Trafford09 (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Trafford. Don't worry about commenting here you can say anything on your mind I won't take it personally. Here's the deal: more than one of the "30 em"s I changed to in articles were changed by other users since we last talked to 2 cols. The first thing I thought was to revert back to 30em, but before doing so I went and re-read the doc at the template we spoke of, to be sure I was right and had basis to revert or and/or to make reference to that doc as part of my reversion. But when I re-read that doc carefully, it seemed to me that doc permits according to personal judgement what seems seems most appropriate for the number of refs involved, and even gives examples where 30em is not used. So that seemed like no basis by which I could revert anyone, so I didn't, and it even led me to considering if cols=2 isn't "more appropriate" than 30em according to the few number of refs involved. The bottom line is that I want to do the right thing, editors seem to do things differently and will revert one another, and the doc isn't clear about anyone being really right or wrong. I'll copy/paste the parts of the doc that I think throw lack of clarity at this if you like, to discuss how I'm interpreting? Bottom line is I don't see any right or wrong vis-a-vis this, and I feel a bit like "damned if I do & damned if I don't", though I know of course you aren't "damning" me. (But you get the idea of my confusion.) OK, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. I'm having a similar issue with citation techniques as well. I tried to do as Malleus does, then an editor reverted me on the basis of it being inappropriate. So I don't know what is right or wrong, and the whole thing about these markup techniques seems a bit crazy-making to me. I think that both in the citation world and reflist template documenation, there need to be spelled out clearly what to do and what not to do. Else there there seem to be just differening opinions and unending revertsions and disagreement over what is "right".

Infobox Qs

Sorry, did mean to ignore your question. I don't really know. I generally don't have strong feelings about infoboxes, which is probably a surprise since sometimes it seems I express strong opinions about nearly everything else related to Wikipedia. I used to dislike infoboxes a lot. Later I grew to tolerate them, and now I probably mildly like them in many applications. Aside from that I don't have too much to say. Quale (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Szen Variation

I don't think anybody calls the 5.Nb5 Taimanov that anymore. Unless you have strong evidence to the contrary, we probably shouldn't be using that name on Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hooper/Whyld have entry by that name in 1987 Companion. (I don't have the most recent edition.) Seirawan calls the opening by that name in No Regrets (1992; p. 199). Do you have a source that overrides those? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a source that specifically says the term is obsolete, but I will say that I've yet to find a book in my collection that does use that term. It's not in general opening books like the latest edition of MCO (2008), Watson's Mastering the Chess Openings 1 (2006) or Van der Sterren's Fundamental Chess Openings (2009). Nor was I able to find it in books specifically on the Taimanov, namely Burgess's The Taimanov Sicilian (2000), Emms's The Sicilian Taimanov Move by Move (2012) or Starting Out: the Sicilian (2008), Delchev & Semkov's The Safest Sicilian (2008), or Rizzitano's Chess Explained: The Taimanov Sicilian (2006), all of which analyze the variation in some detail. I think I may have seen that name used in print once—the story in the Companion about Szen winning with it does ring a bell—but it's definitely rare these days. I'll leave it for you to decide. Cobblet (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have those books. So ... all of them call the 5.Nb5 line in the Taimanov: "5.Nb5 in the Taimanov"? (Isn't that a bit like naming one's dog: "Dog"?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the vast majority of opening variations aren't named. Most of the lines in the Taimanov haven't been given names, for example. Some of the books I mentioned do call 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 the Maróczy Bind Variation, and Rizzitano also calls 5.Nb5 d6 6.Bf4 the Probing Bishop Variation. It wouldn't surprise me if calling 5.Nb5 the "Szen" was more common in the first half of the 20th century, when this was a popular weapon against the Taimanov; but ever since it was shown to be pretty harmless for Black in the 70s, people have played it less and less, and that may have been why the name fell out of use as well. Cobblet (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

But 5.Nb5 line in the Taimanov has a name -- the Szen Variation -- whether or not that name is in popular use. (And, it has no other name, just that one. You wrote "we probably shouldn't be using that name on Wikipedia", but that seems odd to me, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and including the name for the line 5.Nb5 in the encyclopedia seems very encyclopedic to me.) Have you tried Googling "Szen Variation"? There are lots of hits on playsites. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

First, you'll note that virtually all the hits on Google are to databases on game sites. That's not surprising: most databases automatically classify their games by opening, and they usually have at their disposal a long list of opening names not dissimilar to what's given at the end of the Companion. I have in mind a list like this, for example.

But my point is not whether the name exists (it clearly does), but whether the name is in common use, or is deprecated. So I did a search on Google Books for "Szen variation", and I'm not surprised to find that none of the hits actually mention this particular variation of the Taimanov. You can do a search on "Taimanov 5.Nb5" to see the difference in the results.

I agree that Wikipedia has a duty to record the name of the 5.Nb5 Taimanov if it is current or standard usage. However, if the name is obsolete, I don't think Wikipedia should be recording the name without mentioning the fact that it's no longer in use. If we had a specific page on the Taimanov Variation I think such a mention would be worthwhile, but in a general overview of the Sicilian Defence there's neither reason nor space to add all the obsolete variation names in the opening. In that database I linked to above, "Sicilian Defense" returns 259 results, and I think it would be absurd to include all of them into that article. So in the end, I reverted your change to the Sicilian Defence page, but left it on the other two lists.

By the way, I suspect that what actually happened was this: before Taimanov popularized the line in the 70s, there was no name at all for the position after 4...Nc6, so names were necessary for popular subvariations such as 5.Nb5. Once people started calling 4...Nc6 "the Taimanov", it became possible to say "5.Nb5 Taimanov", and so the original name (which may not have been all that common to begin with) fell into disuse, particularly when the variation itself became rarer. Cobblet (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I did a search on Google Books for "Szen variation", and I'm not surprised to find that none of the hits actually mention this particular variation of the Taimanov. Isn't that because they mention it in association with the Paulsen? Here is a 2003 example: Beyond Deep Blue; Deep Junior vs. Kasparov. You seem to be a Sicilian guy can you explain that? (I'm honestly confused why Paulsen is associated. And a lot of the playsites make the same connection. With the N already on b5, there is no line of the Paulsen or transposition into the Paulsen that I'm aware of. Are they representing the Paulsen differently than how WP represents it? Or are they just making a mistake?) There are many references to "Paulsen Variation. Szen Variation" including Chessgames.com and other notable sites.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, guess I should've clicked on the first link. But look at who the author is: it's a professor from McGill University—a computer scientist, judging from the subject matter; not an actual chess player. No real analysis is given in the games, for example—just brief colour commentary. And look at the rest of the opening names used in the book—they're also the names one gets from databases. Like in the next two games: "Nimzo-Indian Defense: Normal Variation. Bishop Attack Classical Defense" and "Sicilian Defense: Najdorf. Opocensky Variation Traditional Line." I can assure you'll be unable to find a single book written in the last fifty years that calls the Rubinstein complex in the Nimzo or the 6.Be2 Najdorf by those names. To illustrate what the Companion or the databases won't tell you, 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Ne2 is sometimes called the Modern Variation (that's actually mentioned on our Nimzo page, since I wrote that one) and the 6.Be2 Najdorf is occasionally named after Efim Geller; but both names are far from universally used.

Meanwhile, you've stumbled on the horribly confusing Kan/Paulsen/Taimanov nomenclature issue. To paraphrase Burgess's explanation (The Taimanov Sicilian, 2000) of the modern convention in English: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 is the Kan, while 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 is the Taimanov. Both can lead to what Taimanov himself called the Paulsen, which is when Black plays ...a6, ...Nc6 and ...Qc7 in any order; but the "Paulsen" is sometimes also to describe the same thing as the Kan—not the Taimanov! Taimanov only named the lines where Black plays ...Nge7 after himself, since this was his actual invention; this we sometimes call the "pure" Taimanov. To answer your question, yes, the databases are simply wrong to call the Szen part of the Paulsen. Cobblet (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC

On page 144 of Yasser Seirawan's 2003 book Winning Chess Openings (Everyman Chess), Yasser calls (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4) 4...a6 the Paulsen Variation, 4...Nc6 the Szen Variation, and 4...Nf6 the Pin Variation. On the same page he further breaks down the Paulsen Variation as follows: 5.Nc3 (Taimanov Variation), 5.c4 (Reti Variation), and 5.Bd3 (Gipslis Variation). I think it's safe to say Seirawan is a reliable source. Your assumption 4...Nc6 carried no name seems to be in contention with Seirawan. Yasser treats the Szen Variation starting on page 146, but page 147 isn't available for "Look Inside" viewing on Amazon, and I don't have the book, but I can see in the search box: "Page 147 ... Black's fourth move distinguishes the Szen Variation, which has its own flavor aft…". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting—I do have that book. But first of all, his definition of the Szen Variation is different from what you, the databases and the Companion were referring to, which is specifically the move 5.Nb5 in response to 4...Nc6, correct? Now, the only line Seirawan gives after 4...Nc6 is 5.Nb5, but in the book he's clearly labelling 4...Nc6 the Szen and not 5.Nb5. And I never said 4...Nc6 had no name: it's the Taimanov, as Burgess and our Sicilian Defence article make clear. I've also already given you the titles of eight books that follow Burgess's convention I quoted above. Please read everything I've written. I have come across no other source in which the Taimanov, "Reti", and "Gipslis" are defined the way Seirawan does. Cobblet (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not contradicting myself. I haven't contended anything personally myself other than these three things: Hooper/Whyld (my 1987 version) puts a footnote on 5.Nb5 corresponding to "Szen Variation", Seirawan (No Regrets, 1992, p. 199) gives annotation after move 5.Nb5 that starts "The Szen variation, [...]", and Seirawan (Winning Chess Openings, 2003) names the lines as I've specified above (you have the book, great). If anyone is "contradicting themselves", it is Seirawan not me. (I put out the Seirawan names in this thread immediately after finding them at the above link, I wasn't knowing that info prior.) Yes I got it wrong saying you said there wasn't a name for 4...Nc6, sorry for that. (You said before Taimanov popularized the line in the 70s, there was no name at all for the position after 4...Nc6. I guess my logic slip-up exists in the supposing that, if Seirawan calls 4...Nc6 "Szen Variation", presumably he knows 4...Nc6 derives from Jozsef Szen, who died in 1857. Or it rather looks like what he intended, which explains his naming conventions, is that 4...Nc6 5.Nb5 is uniquely Szen, whereas 4...Nc6 5.Nc3 will transpose into other lines and *not* the Szen line.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You have the Seirawan book, and can see the content continuation after p. 146 that I don't have access to, so your the only line Seirawan gives after 4...Nc6 is 5.Nb5 seems to be key. (Clearly, Seirawan intends 5.Nb5 to be named Szen Variation, and that is just the way he went about getting there, with all other lines going elsewhere.) So the real bottom line is just that I found another reliable source in the Seirawan 2003 book, that calls 5.Nb5 "Szen V." (wouldn't you agree?). (I know in Seirawan's 1992 No Regrets, it looks like he got "Szen" direct from Hooper/Whyld by the context of his other comments. But of course I wouldn't know how he came to calling 5.Nb5 the Szen in his 2003 book. I know Seirawan's reputation for quality chess education materials for several decades, in fact his reputation is tops. I'm not sure about the authors of the books you listed by compare. I don't know but were you suggesting they may all have followed Burgess's lead? Again what are Burgess's qualifications -- he has no WP article.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

On page 144, Seirawan gives three options for Black on move 4. He writes, and I quote:

• "4...a6 (Paulsen Variation)
• 4...Nc6 (Szen Variation)
• 4...Nf6 (Pin Variation)"

The description on page 147 runs, "As seen in Diagram 125, Black develops a Knight (sic) and doesn't waste a tempo for ...a7-a6 yet. As always, the position can allow for a number of transpositions. If White plays 5.Nc3 d6, the game can quickly become a Scheveningen Variation. Black's fourth move distinguishes the Szen Variation, which has its own flavor after 5.Nb5."

It seems pretty clear to me from the above that Seirawan believes 4...Nc6, not 5.Nb5, is the move that defines the Szen Variation. It appears to me that the phrase "its own flavor" only serves to point out that not all lines after 4...Nc6 necessarily transpose other lines like the Scheveningen.

Graham Burgess has been the editor of Gambit Publications since its inception. And yes, all eight books I listed above follow the convention he stated on the Taimanov/Paulsen issue, and none of them call 5.Nb5 the Szen. Yaz's "Winning Chess" book series has a good reputation in general, but this particular volume on openings seems to be full of idiosyncrasies in other places, not just here. He doesn't hesitate to call various lines in different openings the "Seirawan Variation", for example, even though I've never seen anyone else name those lines after him.

In the end, I remain convinced that calling 5.Nb5 the "Szen" is not standard practice these days, and that you found two books by the same author that do so does not contradict my position. Winning Chess Openings is a book aimed at teaching novice players what to do in the opening; it's not meant to be an authoritative reference work, whereas five of the books I cited are specialist guides on this particular variation of the Sicilian, written with a more advanced audience in mind. Go get a copy of Seirawan's book, and go get copies of all the books I mentioned as well. That will help you form your own opinion better than anything I have to say at this point. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this. Cobblet (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to be putting money down on those five books, but I'll be researching them as well as I can, and their authors. Ditto for the quality of Seirawan's book. I think your interpretation of "which has its own flavor after 5.Nb5" might be faulty, that sentence seems to me to imply that if White plays other than 5.Nb5, then the line beginning 4...Nc6 will *not* have "its own flavor" (i.e. it will transpose into one of the other named variations). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Self-correction, I found Burgess's WP article: Graham Burgess. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• Burgess is rated only 2265 according to FIDE. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• Seirawan is rated 2620 according to FIDE. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• B44 Sicilian Szen Dely-Kasparov gambit 365chess.com
• B44 Sicilian Szen 'anti-Taimanov' variation 365chess.com
• B44 Sicilian Szen hedgehog variation 365chess.com

Unsolicited comments

Now this is just too funny for me not to respond. We're using Elo ratings to determine the credibility of a source?! By that logic, should we be comparing our own ELO ratings to determine whose opinion has more credibility? But OK, if this is the game you want to play: in Nunn's Chess Openings (1999), Nunn twice mentions the move 5.Nb5 in the Taimanov without referring to it as the Szen. See p. 183 as well as p. 3 in the Table of Contents. In both cases other variations in the surrounding text are explicitly named. John Nunn is a former top 10 player in the world. This is now the ninth example I've provided, from what was regarded as the most authoritative one-volume opening encyclopedia in the world at the time it was published.

Just for good measure, here's a tenth example from last month. A search of ChessPublishing.com, which is a subscription site where titled players present the latest news in opening theory, turns up no hits for "Szen". The site's been around for over 10 years and I'm a subscriber myself. Cobblet (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Algebraic notation box

Thanks for taking the time to ask. Compared to the main choice of having a notation box compared with a hatnote or passing the problem onto wikibooks, it's quite a trivial matter, so please don't feel obliged to divert from your more important work. However, what I meant by symmetry/order (balance may have been a better word) was the way that the notation box floats somewhere between the contents box and the main info box in most opening articles; nearly in the middle, but not quite and not following any normal rule of alignment like right/left justified. If I put on my graphic designer's hat, it looks ugly/misplaced and I think a more balanced layout would be achieved if we modify the arrangement found in Modern Benoni or Ruy Lopez, where the notation box is tucked under the main info box. Of course, in those two examples, the notation box sticks out strangely, and so the first task would be to make it align with the main info box, or the right margin if it can't be made of identical width. Hard to say if others would like that though. The more ugly, floating off-centre arrangement probably minimizes dead space more efficiently, so the consensus may just be to uphold that principle above all things aesthetic. Anyway, it's not a big deal either way, so I'll stop rambling on. Happy to have your opinion though. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Looking at those two examples again, I can see that they are also competing for the central dead space, but failing because it's not wide enough. Nevertheless, I would say they'd look better under the main info box, by design, rather than by accident. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I understanding right, this seems to be a screen-width issue? (Ruy Lopez and especially Mondern Benoni, have very wide TOCs, wider than all other openings articles. The wide TOCS limit the space between the TOC and the Infobox, where the notation box was intended to go. On my screen there is still room for the notation box to fit between. I'm thinking on your narrower screen, those wide TOCs squeeze out the notation box, causing it to fall downward in search of a space for itself. Over time Bubba & I have efforted to make the Ruy Lopez TOC less wide. But apparently it isn't narrow enough for your screen width to also accomodate the notation box. In that case yes, I agree that right-justified below the Infobox would be a better location for the notation box. But in general I do not like that location for it, esthetically. [I could explain why, but maybe that's off point at the moment.]) Are there any other articles where the notation box is shooting off looking for space for itself, or just those two? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think you are correct. I have a squarer, less elongated screen, so probably the problem is not going to occur for most people, who will have a more fashionable 'widescreen'. In fact, by slimming down my 'favorite links' box, I can now get the Lopez notation box to fall in the slot, but not the one at Modern Benoni. I haven't checked all the other openings, but these were the only two I found on a quick survey. As I've previously said, I'd prefer to get rid of the notation box altogether, as outlined by Cobblet, but I'm sensing some resistance to that idea and seeing as I rarely edit openings, it's probably sensible that I leave the decision to those who do. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad Lopez is working for you now. I'm pretty sure there are no other openings articles you'd have any problems with, except Modern Benoni. (The TOC for Modern Benoni is inordinently wide, unlike any other openings article. I'm sure that TOC width could be reduced through simplification similar to how Bubba & I reduced the Ruy Lopez TOC width. You mentioned you were able to slim down your 'favorite links' box. I guess that means it is a vertical box. There might be an option to make your 'favorite links' box horizontal up on top of your screen instead of to the side, as option on one of the top horizontal toolbars. (That would free up horizontal screen width enough for even the mammothly wide Modern Benoni TOC, I'd guess.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Less Restricted Double Chess

You can ignore check if you have two kings. If you have only one, you must deal with check as usual. No restriction on where you can castle. Everything else as in standard Double Chess. Double sharp (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case there would be "castling long", "castling loong", and "castling looong"!

Seriously, you pointed out something that can't be rectified with the current ruleset in Pritchard: What if a player's two kings are in check simultaneously? (Such as, an enemy rook sliding between the two kings on the same rank.) Your rule mod might be *required* in that case!? I don't have access to the BCM Jan. 1929 issue, I'm wondering if I can find the answer ... Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

0-0-0-0-0, indeed!

I suspect standard Double Chess would have you checkmated in such a situation unless you could capture the checking piece. But then again, you only have to checkmate one king, so perhaps you do just ignore one check?! (Though that's a little different from my rule modification, because mine would allow you to not move either king out of check, whereas this means you address one check, but not the other?!) Double sharp (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet another ridiculous chess variant idea

Cuiviénen Chess: 12 (vertically) × 144 (horizontally) board.(!!! the number could be ridiculous) White starts on the east side of the board, with a quadruple Gross Chess set-up (empty spaces filled with commoners, thus 144 pieces). Black has 12 uncapturable queen+nightrider+fire demon+lion (ridiculously overpowered, I know) set up randomly across unoccupied squares (but NOT at the very west end at the board. They cannot go to the a-file.) that can only capture unprotected pieces (but can burn stuff with impunity if they don't endanger themselves by doing so. They don't burn each other.). White's goal is to get at least 52 pieces to the west end of the board (defined as "as far as they can go without being blocked by a wall of friendly pieces on the next rank"). Once they are there, they cannot be captured under any circumstances. Black's goal is to prevent White from achieving his goal. Double sharp (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

From this you can probably tell what I think of Duniho's statement that "...piece[s that] can force checkmate on [their] own...[are] bad piece[s] to use."! Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wooha! (Quadruple Gross = 128 pieces. Since capturing protected pieces isn't allowed, burning is the primary Black defense -- what is "burning" and how does it work? I read Lord of the Rings decades ago, is the migration goal thematic from the trilogy [can't remember]? Are White pieces safe when they arrive west, or only after migrating "as far as they can go"? Your game falls under Fox & Geese category [unbalanced forces; different objectives] which makes it interesting. Hmm ... a board 12 x 144 squares ... hmm ... that is super long and kills any chance of a commercial success. [Hasbro won't be calling you, he-he!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll fill the missing space from the Gross with commoners to reach 144. That fits the original better. :-) Oh, and all the original kings are commoners too.

Burning – if you move to a square next to enemy pieces, all those pieces are burned and removed from the board. This can quickly result in unprotections! White pieces are safe when they arrive at the a-file. If the a-file is full, safety is at the b-file, and so on. Though I can see how this might not work well. Got any suggestions? ;-)

I should really let Black do more and add a "flee" rule from Nemoroth: when a White piece is within 2 squares of a Black piece – i.e. within a 5×5 square centered on the Black piece – it must move away, in the same way that you must move out of check, no matter what might result. But this might be overpowered...

No, this isn't from LOTR, this is from The Silmarillion (the other one) – see chapter 3. But all those Elves going West, I suppose you could say it's related. :-) I did not implement the island ferry to the west because that would severely nerf Black's pieces... Double sharp (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want the original story where I got the idea for this from, see Elf (Middle-earth)#History. Double sharp (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

*mind explodes* chess

Takes sledgehammer to Betza's statement that nothing new can be derived from Turning Chess

Specifically, it's his suggestion that "the 1/16th turn might make the Q go to a place between two squares, where she can stop on the line between the two squares, thus expanding the board". Since letters are not continuous, while numbers are, we'll have to use coordinates for both...

Irrational-fractions-of-a-circle turns anyone? I like this concept with circular pieces: they then go tantalizingly close to the direction they started with, but can never return to it. To be even more terrible, we could have a Q where the R and the B components turn at different rates. Or maybe split the R and the B both into W's, nD's, nH's,... F's, nA's, nG's... Such things must be allowed to exist with impunity!

And now for something completely different.

Given that each complete circuit of the rose is an octagon, we could therefore have a "starry rose", which would trace out an octagram (goes 3 rose spaces in one move! It's an n[qN]3x, where x is a positive integer.) The same concept can be applied to other circular figures. Or perhaps, perversely, its length of the full move it can go in one step could depend on its current position, what direction it came from, etc.

And now for yet another completely different thing.

Incidentally, who said chess pieces had to be pointlike particles? For a 3D chess, it might be prudent to have chess pieces occupying entire lines. These lines may rotate as well as translate (as pointlike orthodox chess pieces do). Billiards would have them reflect from the edge of the board (or perhaps off each other?) A "spherical" piece would then trace out a polyhedron with its line segments, by rotating and translating. (You can make a tetrahedral piece with just rotation.) Translation of a 1-piece (orthodox pieces are 0-pieces, after their dimensions) should be exact – the image at time t (move) should be parallel to the image at time t − 1 (the previous move). 4D chess could have 2-pieces (planes), with glomical pieces (3-spheres) tracing out polychora (4-polytopes). Double sharp (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati

I have replied to your question on the talk page (in a separate section, for obvious reasons)

Also if I may offer some advice: don't get incited/frustrated by the numerous talk page comments placed by the subject's relatives. Yes, it is a case of COI and sock/meat-puppetry, and the comments are too numerous, ill-indented, and somehow obsequious and insulting at the same time (quite an achievement!). But keep in mind that all that is obvious to neutral talkpage readers, and we can choose to respond to comments that offer useful substance (such as the links to the design applications) and simply ignore the ones that are repetitive or irrelevant to improving the article. Thus I would suggest self-reverting your recent reply, since it will only tend to further personalize the discussion and later be used to claim that the "fault" lay on both sides. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone needed to tell those people of/repudiate their false and baseless accusations and unjustifiable slanderous attacks. No one did so I did. I'm not used to being a pin cushion for false and vile allegations. They should have been sanctioned long ago. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact is at this point I despise their conduct. Now that you are on board I'd like to de-watchlist the article and let you handle things. I was going to invest in pruning the excessive/duplicative citations, but NeilN beat me to it. The only possible interest I'd have in the article any longer is to keep the claim "prodigy/genius" OUT, and the claim "world's youngest disabled/wheel-chaired patent holder" OUT. (If no one is vigilant re those two things, no doubt they would spring up like weeds.) Do you have any suggestions re vigilance who/what/where/when/how? Thanks, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How to reply ::Communication intended for the inventor : Thanks and regards for concern: Yes you were 100% correct in aspects hinted by you.

Respected Sir: I am not eligible to edit the talk section. I really appreciate your concern and initiative. If you wish sir, I can send the detailed work with images to you sir. Though we have mentioned about 12 players circular chess and 60 players circular chess but it is not there in See Also: If you wish sir, please guide me how to email it to you sir. Yes you were 100% correct but we have not disclosed everything on website. We have taken into consideration for every aspect hinted by you. Please guide me how to send my work to you for your kind inspection. Rest is your show sir. Regards 122.161.213.22 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just glad you understand my points and passed them on to Hridayeshwar. I don't think there is any necessity to send your materials to me, I prefer to see the specific info on the Hridayeshwar webiste as time goes on. (If there is important update there, perhaps I can notice it and merge into the WP article to maintain accuracy and completeness.) I believe but do not know, that if 6-player is understood, then 12- & 60-player versions follow suit. I think the 6-player version is complex enough for the WP article, so to get that game right, would surely be an accomplishment. Cheers & good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: I discussed with hridayeshwar regarding Clockwise and Anti Clockwise concept in 6 players circular chess and his rest of invented chess variants and his answer was that He has not kept any constraint for same. His idea was to finish game early so he wanted the same. To further clarify suppose a Bishop is at any place, it can move clockwise or anticlockwise for any move. But for a particular move bishop must move only exactly one of them. I.E That Bishop will not move clockwise as well as anticlockwise in one single move. When I asked how it is possible that both clockwise and anticlockwise are possible in same move? His answer was it is possible while crossing the Center Circle though it is not allowed by him. When i asked him, what will be the status of Bishop if it is right now at the border of the circle. His reply was move clockwise or anticlockwise is still the choice for that perticular move. The conclusion is Whether you move anticlockwise or clock wise is allowed for any different move. But in same move or one move Both the directions in same move is not allowed. He further said he also wanted to keep such rule for giving more powers to all pieces to finish the game early and keep the game simple. Moreover to assess the clockwise or anticlockwise direction of all players might lead to confusion and complication. Respected sir I have discussed lot other issues about 6 players circular chess from him and i will let you know sir, even Victory conditions etc. This is very important to mention that Website is not complete, updated for intellectual property reasons. Some people might take advantage from website and launch his games at their own Regards 106.219.38.133 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: Yes one thing raised by you proves your inventive instinct and highest level of competency for chess. That is colors black and White at center as accepted by Hridayeshwar, when i asked the same question to him. His answer was that, "Yes keeping Center for only two colors is very confusing and difficult for making moves to cross center and unfortunately it struck to him after filing patent of 6 players circular chess. But he has taken care of same in other invented chess variants. Now he has kept multi color center for same. Now it is more simple and easy to play. Further he has taken care of same in his 6 players circular chess game launching and for all purpose whatsoever wheresoever. Evidence Respected Sir: Please go through attached files. Regards 106.219.39.81 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Latest_invented_and_innovated_variant_of_12_Players_Circular_Chess_by_an_amazing_special_kid_Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati_from_India_who_is_also_the_youngest_patent_holder_of_India_for_inventing_circular_chess_for_6_players.jpg , [[File:Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Latest invented and innovated variant of 12 Players Circular Chess by an amazing special kid Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati from India who is also the youngest patent holder of India for inventing circular chess for 6 players.jpg|thumbnail]] Regards. 106.219.38.133 (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Further Sir: 12 players circular chess patent and 60 players circular chess patent has multi color center and it struck to him before file of these patents. Regards.106.219.38.133 (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Next point raised by you was about sitting positions while playing in chess variants invented by Hridayeshwar. When i asked him his reply was that In 6 players circular chess following playing possibilities exists 1: 2 Players individual: Sit opposite

2: 3 Players individual: Sit alternate

3: 4 players individual: 2 will sit opposite to 2: Gap A B Gap C D: Yes position of A, B , C, D can be decided on the basis of toss. The dispute could be being adjacent or opposite as proximity to level of strength of player might create dispute

4: 6 players Individual: Only one possibility: Yes position of A, B , C, D, E, F can be decided on the basis of toss. The dispute could arise due to proximity as the level of strength of players might create dispute.

5: 2 teams of 3 each: Alternate Arrangement: F E F E F E

6: 2 teams of 3 each: Opposite arrangement: F F F E E E

7: 3 teams of 2 each: Same teams sitting adjacent: Z Z Y Y X X

8: 3 teams of 2 each: Competitors sit adjacent: Z Y X Z Y X

9: 2 teams of 2 each: Same teams Sit together and they are opposite to competitor team: Gap A A Gap B B

10: 2 teams of 2 each: One member of team and one member of Competitor are sitting adjacent and these 2 are sitting in such a manner to make sure that the same team members are sitting opposite Gap F E Gap F E

11: 2 teams of 2 each: One member of team and one member of Competitor are sitting adjacent and these 2 are sitting in such a manner to make sure that the competitor team members are sitting opposite Gap F E Gap E F

Hridayeshwar further clarified to me that above are 11 possible circular chess variants are possible on 6 players circular chess board. Further Sir the following links will give you an idea about few of your queries and concern sir. I am sorry that that the following links are having an error of uploading. Instead of indexing files 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10....35. It reads invented 6 , 7 , 8, ...35 players circular chess. Moreover these files and links are related to 12 players circular chess but they will be helpful even for 6 players circular chess as the logic remains same as far as moves, center color, sitting position , Non playing zones, etc are concerned. Respected Sir: Please go through the attached files: Regards 106.219.39.81 (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Latest_invented_and_innovated_variant_of_12_Players_Circular_Chess_by_an_amazing_special_kid_Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati_from_India_who_is_also_the_youngest_patent_holder_of_India_for_inventing_circular_chess_for_7_players.jpg Regards 106.219.39.81 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: You rightly raised the point about victory conditions when playing in team as far as moving all pieces out of the team member when he loses his king? When i asked Hridayeshwar his reply was that Whatever is the format of game, Individual or Team, one who loses his king, his all the pieces will be removed from the game (Whether individual or a team member). When i asked him his reply was Suppose 2 teams of 3 players are playing. Then the winner team will be who finishes the three kings of the opposite team. His logic for making this rule was on simple logic that Kings must be most important pieces. Otherwise players will be bothered only for last king. Because as such moves are concerned King has less powers therefore people might be bothered about the last asking only. or try to protect or guard a particular king. After all killing king must give an achievement. Further he cautioned that this rule is very important to understand. Some times who kills others king might enter into a vulnerable situation as the game will be totally changed, once all the pieces will be removed. Players will think many times to kill some one king. This move will take maximum time as it will change the direction of game totally. He further mentioned once he was playing circular chess 6 players and he was into strong position and he killed some ones king and even thought very carefully and observed that once all the pieces will be removed the player having next turn will be able to kill another king. This way he thought 2 players will be out and their pieces will be removed. But he was not able to observe the effect on him when the player having next turn will kill the king of another player. That costed him very dearly and finally his king was killed and the player in weakest situation emerged into the strongest one. Regards 106.219.44.241 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Will need some time to carefully digest all you have written above. So please be patient, etc. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: Kind inspection Please: Regards 106.219.45.132 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: "100 Chess Variants": This following line (Verbatim) is supported by following reliable resources: "Hridyeshwar Singh Bhati, who is wheelchair-bound because of the disease, has three patents for three types of circular chess boards to his name. The three boards collectively make 100 chess variants." Regards 122.161.29.68 (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Moreover Sir: Kind Attention for following references: Reliable reference list of article: Kind inspection please. Regards 122.161.29.68 (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: I understood points raised by you for "6 players circular chess" and passed it to the inventor. More contribution from him that can be useful for "6 players circular chess" is as followed.

Various Chess Variants possible in 6 players circular chess

How pieces moves in 6 players circular chess

Moreover Sir: He has improved the center of 6 players circular chess for better clarity in passing through it.Initially the center was in 2 colors but now he has improved to multi colors. Regards 122.161.230.64 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Further Sir: In above designs the inventor told me that positioning of King and Queen, in the beginning has not been taken care of properly. The thumb rule for placing Queen and King will be left and right respectively. I.E Queen will be at left and King to Right of the player in the initial arrangement. Regards 122.161.230.64 (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The capitalization of honorifics

You wrote:

Q1) Does everyone see and agree then, that as far as cap vs. lower-case goes, we essentially have a critical difference between the following two sentences? "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'", and, "Soviet Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'"? Q2) We've agreed what is correct is "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'" OK. But let's modify the sentence a bit. How? By using "GM" instead. So we have: "The Soviet GM Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'" Is there anything wrong with that sentence? I presume there isn't. And is "GM" in that sentence "honorific". I presume it is. So if "GM" is honorific in that sentence, how could substitution of the word GM represents, suddenly make the substituted word not honorific (and therefore demand lower-case)?

The quote in bold is where you get confused, because there's a difference between an honorific and an acronym, and the trouble with "GM" is that it's an acronym that can sometimes function as an honorific. Compare the usage of "Dr.", which is used exclusively as an honorific in formal writing, in these two sentences:

• "The patient went to see Dr. Rashmi Patel."
• "The patient went to see the Indian Dr. Rashmi Patel."

The second sentence looks wrong: one would write instead "The patient went to see the Indian doctor Rashmi Patel." Do you agree? So if a sentence began "The Soviet GM Yuri Averbakh observed", GM is not functioning as an honorific and is just an acronym for "grandmaster", but if the same sentence began "Soviet GM Yuri Averbakh observed", GM is now functioning as an honorific, and would be capitalized if written out as "Grandmaster". Does this make sense? If it does, I'll answer your other question about what to do when the title is being referred to as a title. Cobblet (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I can see the logic ("GM" conveys neither honorific or non-honorific). OK. But I don't like your "Dr. Rshmi Patel" example because I think parallels like that can confuse things in another context like our Grandmaster/grandmaster context. (For example, "John went to see Grandmaster Benjamin." OK. "John went to see the American grandmaster Benjamin." OK. "John went to see American Grandmaster Benjamin." Is it OK? We agreed that without the definite article it is an honorific in that position and so s/b capped. But your "Dr." example doesn't correlate and sort of implies this third option may not be correct. But we agreed at WT:CHESS it is correct. [Do you still think it is correct? And if so, then is "John went to see American grandmaster Benjamin" incorrect? I assume answers must be yes & yes, but let's confirm.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes and yes—a more appropriate parallel for your third case could be "The diplomats went to greet Indian President Rashmi Patel."

OK.

Now for your other question. This one has to do with the third bullet point in WP:JOBTITLES, which says to capitalize titles when they're used as proper nouns but not when they're used as common nouns. In all four examples you gave I'm pretty sure "grandmaster" would be considered a common noun (since in those situations it's always taking an indefinite article: proper nouns like "King of Morocco" never take indefinite articles) and would therefore be uncapitalized. Cobblet (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I need to review this more tomorrow. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Different topic here ... We agreed the following is correct: "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'" OK. But what if the next sentence was: "The Soviet grandmaster went on further to observe, 'Blah blah blah.'" (Is that followup sentence correct? And would it be correct or incorrect to cap instead: "The Soviet Grandmaster went on further to observe, 'Blah blah blah.'"? [Why can't "The Soviet Grandmaster" be considered as substituting for "Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh", and thereby, "Grandmaster" can be capped just as if the sentence was "Soviet Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh went on further to observe, 'Blah blah blah.'"?])

I think in the second sentence "grandmaster" is still acting as a common noun and should be uncapitalized. Cobblet (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. (I think that's better/consistent also.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I need to point out that I'm not trying to be "difficult" or a trouble-maker or disruptive or anything of that order. I'm just trying to understand, and have most respect for articles and text in practice, since whenever anyone tries to make a convention, they invariably create simplistic examples to support their idea, which faulter and are inadequate come the intricacies and complexities of actual sentences laid out in articles all over the place. (The devil is in the details, and, there are lots of details, i.e. examples, that escape attention usually when we think we are safe forming general rules and using simplistic examples to illustrate them. That is why I'm suspicious of generalities, they are so seductive and easy to make and to want to make, but only really validly formed from compiling lots of examples that make distinct patterns. Going after the generality first and then thinking it will apply without problems, is the opposite way and a precept filled with problems and practically guarantees failure. [I guess the parallel w/ chess is modern theory where "principles" are not respected as much as they once were and positions are now evaluated on their own merits. I remember Solitis writing a column on that very topic, showing examples in games where the classic principles just didn't hold water and counter-intuitive moves were best in certain game positions. One example was where White gained a late middlegame advantage by pushing his pawns to make his bishop bad not good. [The idea wasn't "There are exceptions to the principles", the idea was that thinking in terms of principles closed doors to best moves and how biasing it is to think in terms of principles to begin with.] Somehow I think you know what I'm talking about.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I know you're acting in good faith, but I moved our discussion to your talk page because we're not really talking about conventions for chess articles anymore. Instead you're basically asking me to explain the difference between a proper noun and a common noun and I don't want people to get too sidetracked by our discussion. Also I'm afraid I can't give you a definitive answer on the distinction between them because I'm not a professional linguist, although I did study the subject briefly. So you'll have to take my answers with a grain of salt. Cobblet (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You were going to reply about titles used not as honorifics but when referred to as titles. (Did you already? If so I missed it.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bolded the place in the thread above where I attempted a reply. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The four examples at WT:CHESS weren't chosen and don't necessarily represent clear examples of title referred to as a title. So that doesn't address the direct example I gave at WT:CHESS:

"FIDE bestows to qualified candidates the title of Grandmaster." (The other alternative would be: "FIDE bestows to qualified candidates the title of grandmaster.")

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization is correct here: it's being used as a proper noun. That's all WP:JOBTITLES is about in the end: capitalize whenever it's a proper noun, don't if it isn't. Cobblet (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Btw, you seem a bit bothered lately. What's wrong? We weren't even talking about your fully justified reversion on Talk:Backward pawn. Cobblet (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh? (Nothing's wrong. But thx for the [personal] inquiry. I'd like to see decisions added to WP:CHESS accepted Project conventions [along w/ the ambiguous "White/white" convention, plus piece names in lower-case, etc.] But that's really the extent of existing accepted conventons, yes?) I think what's proper noun and what's not is a bit unclear and subject to interpretation of whatever individual sentence/case, so a general rule re [MOS] proper noun will still lead to difference of opinion and subsequent confusion. So examples are "king". That said, I haven't had time to review the examples brought forward [by me & your responses]. A general rule doesn't do much good if inconsistencies [due to differing interpretations] follow. And consistency is the whole point of course.) Are you ready to hang something on WP:CHESS convention standards!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer to leave the MOS the way it is. If I have a really difficult time deciding whether a noun is proper or common (as I did in some of the cases you showed me), I'd rather ask an actual grammarian. Back to the larger discussion of chess conventions, sorry I've been absent from the discussion lately, but I brought up a few more issues to consider at WT:CHESS. Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

But I wasn't suggesting or implying any change to MoS. (Only a convention standard, via specific common examples, posted at WP:CHESS.) Those common examples are important (else inconsistencies between articles w/ no idea what editor is "right" [many of the GM articles begin w/ the same sentence structure including "Grandmaster/grandmaster"].) You don't need to apologize for absence, in fact a GREAT WHITE took off my left leg while swimming off the beaches of Amity Island </joke>. We're all here temporarily trying to do the best we can. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

TONNES OF THANKS

Respected Sir: The subject of the article Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati has asked me to say "Tonnes of thanks" to you sir for making him realize a very important point about his invention. Pieces will not end their move at the starting point. As it was not clarified by him because this point did not strike to him.Further Sir i have passed the points raised by you to the inventor in the separate section of the talk page of the article,"Communication intended for the inventor Hridayeshwar" and collected his views. Moreover Sir Please go through the points in separate section at your talk page, "How to reply ::Communication intended for the inventor : Thanks and regards for concern: Yes you were 100% correct in aspects hinted by you".Regards122.161.230.64 (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found time yet to review your detail feedbacks, but still plan to. Meantime, I've updated the article image per above, and changed text to "queens to left of kings". (Please note in the new illustration, there appear to be 2 red armies, which might be confusing to readers.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Good job!. (The orange-coloured pieces s/b filled-in, however - i.e. made solid color [w/ either black or white definition lines]. But this was a sufficient fix of yours.) I'm beginning to believe Hridayeshwar is a "brilliant kid" (not "genius", but a brilliant kid nevertheless; the 60-player version is a highly social chess variant innovation, and he s/b commended) -- this is my personal view & nothing offical regarding WP, of course. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This was perfect correction. Good job. (But to include additional diagrams, for how pieces move etc. [i.e. expand article re additional game ruleset/gameplay specifics] would be more appropriate for an article on game "Six-player circular chess" than the BLP [biography of living person], do you agree? And the basis of article on the game itself is subject to WP:GNG criteria, which means there needs to be RLs on the game itself, not just Hridayeshwar inventor [do you agree?]. I would love to help w/ article on Six-player circular chess, but there needs to be RSs on the game itself as mentioned. It will take some time for the game to have attention by itself [on its own merits] from media sources. [See admin Yunshui opinion here. I have already added Bhati's variant as "See also" mention at Circular chess.] When will Six-player circular chess qualify for its own article? I do not know the answer. [The answer is subject to WP:GNG criteria, as mentioned.]) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Since I am picky re grahics, and you are responsive, I would recommend yellow queen and rook to have black definition lines (same as the orange queen and rook), for better visability against spaces (especially white spaces). (In addition if you can, you s/ put black definition lines around the yellow pawns, for same reason.) There are some other inconsistencies, but these are the best first changes, if easy for you to do. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir:First of all i appreciate your brain (I.Q as well as E.Q). The photograph of inventor with chess variants is displayed on Wikipedia but the thumb nail photograph is still the older one. I.E Inventor on wheel chair.Please solve this problem. Further Sir (Respected YUNSHUI SIR CONCERN), Inventor with chess variants proves the production. If required i can submit a lot of photographs that proves 6, 12, 60 players is already produced,but not at commercial level. Even i can submit lot of photographs for 6, 12 being played at home, at school, inter school tournaments in the state of the inventor ie Rajasthan. Yes to be very honest: As far as 60 players circular chess is concerned: Inventor believes that it is a very tough challenge to make it playable with convenience.Inventor has asked me to honestly share the situation about, "Production and Playing" of his inventions.Regards.122.161.68.112 (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

When I go to article Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati, I see this photo in the Infobox:

.

(You do not? Then perhaps you need to clear your browser's cache and try again!?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: If we pick the inventor link of Wikipedia:And if we post it on facebook: Then it shows 2 thumbnails One is the latest photograph "Starting position" and another is "Inventor on wheel chair". Technically i am incompetent to understand/resolve this problem. Regards 122.161.68.112 (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Respected Sir: When i visit Wikipedia i also find "Inventor with chess variants photograph" but when i pick the Wikipedia link of the article, then in 2 thumb nails that photo is replaced by "Inventor on wheel chair". Regards 122.161.68.112 (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir:Media is more interested in writing the theme as "Rare achievements despite hardships". Disease, Fatal, Wheel Chair, Kid etc to make there story sensational. They are less interested in writing technical details. Even inventor hates reading news about him as it discourages him..Death, fatal, disease etc stuff. Further Sir the best strength of the inventor is out of box thinking. The key notable aspect about the inventor is "Creativity", "Out of box thinking", "Tangential thinking". Not only he has invented Chess variants but invented 16 x 16 sudoku and applied for patent. Developed economic mobility van ramp modification design , developed a project for disaster free world .Regards 122.161.68.112 (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't use Facebook, so I don't know about the problem or solution there. I understand that when you go to the WP article the correct images show, but when you pick the Wikipedia link of the article, then in 2 thumb nails that photo is replaced [...]. What do you mean by "pick the link"? (Do you mean when clicking on the image?)

I understand Hridayeshwar's frustration, it is the nature of the newsmedia. Bobby Fischer had similar experience at age 13:

[...] the press; whenever they did chess stories, reporters would look for a certain amount of aberration among the players. Bobby, therefore, frequently became a victim of a twisted interpretation of his personality. When he was interviewed by a reporter, he was often asked patronizing or offensive questions ("How come you don't have a girlfriend?" ... "Are all chessplayers crazy?"), and it became clear to him that they were going to slant the story to make him appear weird. "Ask me something usual," he once said to a reporter, "instead of making me look unusual." To another he talked about newspapermen in general: "Those guys always write bad stories about me. They say I'm stupid and that I have no talent in anything except for chess. It's not true." Endgame by Brady, 2011, p 71

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir: Kind Attention Please: As per your instructions, I have tried my level best, in the direction suggested by you Sir (As suggested by Respected YUNSHUI Sir also).

Six Players Circular Chess:: Attention by itself [Media Resources] Supported by following notable and reliable references:Including Yahoo News, MSN News, The Times of India, The Hindu etc

@1: Six Players circular chess is an invented chess variant.

@2:Six Players Circular Chess is an Chess Variant invention for 2, 3, 4, 6 Players

@3:6 Players Circular Chess invention: Journey and Challenges.

@4: Origin and need for 6 players circular chess invention::

'@5:Technical Information about 6 players Circular Chess'

@6: Six Players Circular Chess is friendly to existing chess lovers:

@7: 6 players Circular chess appreciated by reputed/Expert people

@8: Six Players Circular Chess is Patented

@9:6 players circular chess inventor became "Youngest Patent Holder in India"

@10: 6 players circular chess inventor became "Youngest disabled patent holder of the world"

@11:Similarities and Differences between "Chess" and "6 players circular chess variants

Regards 122.161.53.239 (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of this refbombing, I would be more impressed if you provided three or four sources covering people actually playing the game. Better if these sources were chess journals or magazines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Respected Sir:Kind Attention Please: Trying my level best to provide resources(People actually playing the game + Coverage about game also:Media:: Video + Photograph).

All the following references , has shown people playing 6 players circular chess together. Further these references has also spoken about 6 players circular chess.

@1: Reference 6 of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati or the following link

@2:Video by News X (Newsxlive):Under the title,"Good News: Physically challenged boy invents chess game for 6 people - NewsX" in all the following links

@3: Yahoo India National News cover story for Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati/6 players circular chess(Following links)

@4:ETV National news cover story for Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati/6 players circular chess(Following links)

@5:Sahara TV national NCR news cover story of Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati/6 players circular chess(Following links)

@6:India News National news live cover story of Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati/6 players circular chess(Following link)

@7: Front page News of Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati @ City Bhaskar(Dainik Bhaskar Jaipur)on 3rd December 2012 A.D ,, has shown people playing 6 players circular chess together.

@8: Three Photographs of Hridayeshwar playing 6 players circular chess with friends in the following links.

Regards122.161.116.90 (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Facebook links are useless. And I'm not going through every link as the first couple only showed friends/family playing the game for a photo op. This is not reliable sources "covering the game". Coverage of the game would be a report and analysis of a serious chess tournament with serious chess players unrelated to Bhati playing the variant. Before you start refbombing with more useless links, remember you are technically blocked from editing Wikipedia. Post two or three good references instead of garbage like this that wastes other editors' time or this account will also be blocked. That's my view anyways. Ihardlythinkso may have more patience. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo Chess

Looks like some admin came by and summarily deleted the Chess on Yahoo! article on which we were working. Can we contest this? Fishface gurl (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Now we have this: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Chess_on_Yahoo!_Games Fishface gurl (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits on Gary Kasparov Article

I just wanted to apologize for coming off as an ass hole through my recent edits on the Gary Kasparov article. I also apologized to User:Toccata quarta for unintentionally re-reverting his edits back to mine. Could you explain to me what I did specifically to upset you so I don't make the same mistake in the future? I found some additional sources for this article and I was simply trying to reorganize it to make it easier to read.

Best,

Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't upset. There was no reason to suppose your revert (edit-war instead of WP:BRD) was done by accident, so your edit sum in that context seemed snarky. (Am curious to understand how TW works re edit sums [I don't use that s/w myself]: how is the edit sum generated, by drop box selection? a programmed default? And does it display each edit for approval such as clicking 'send' or something? Thx for explain.) At any rate, article leads are suscribed to be up to four paras for mature articles, so I don't understand the compulsion to reduce the Kasparov lead to one sentence. Also, a section title "Background" is implicit re lead material, so relocating material to section of that name is redundant and therefore disimprovement. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Boris Katalimov

Hi I see you are interested in chess - could you please take a look at this Boris Katalimov ? Thank you --Itemirus (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I made minor punct. changes, but I don't know how to improve the article further; I lack the research materials. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WTF?

Why did you revert my edit to WP:DIVA? There is no link to any editor for that quote. Please self-revert. Doc talk 05:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even going to wait for a response. You know what to do with your revert. Get used to this attitude. Doc talk 05:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt to goad ("bait") me into an edit war will not work. There is no link to any editor with that quote. You are now therefore edit warring in bad faith. And I truly don't give a fuck what your opinion of my edit is. It wasn't meant for you to revert. Doc talk 06:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You're full of it. And how stupid do you think I am?

I haven't posted there [Eric Corbett's User talk] since my last post, and I don't plan on it. It seems pretty clear I'd be blocked for "harassment" if I were to ever post there again. Doc talk 06:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you have found another venue (DIVA editorial page) to do your harassment on. Please stay off my Talk. (I don't like dishonest, nasty people here. I agree with Drmies. You are a "disruptor".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Chess Date

Thank you for offering your expertise in my edit, much better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HACKER HEADSHOT (talk • contribs) 00:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. (It remains to be seen if other editors agree w/ incorporating place with the 'years' parm, but place & time are always connected really, so for me it does seem a quality improvement.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Chess Party Tonight!

Hi! I hope all is well. I can gather that you are somewhat interested in the administrative side of this site (like me). I don't know if you care about the supposedly technical aspects of it like "Checkuser" but I have noticed something I would like to share. The checkuser function supposedly just checks IP, user agent, and other technical data that's easily concealed or faked. In practice, however, I think it is being used for political purposes and the data fudged to support a certain goal. I only say this since I've been through checkuser over 200 times, and I know what IPs and user agents I have. I believe what is going on is the checkusers look primarily at behavioral traits between the two accounts. Then if the two IPs are anywhere on the same continent they mark it as "confirmed." Or sometimes they mark it as "likely" and block the account anyway. I came to these conclusions since I use IPs from all over and when I'm "obviously being me" the checkuser comes back "confirmed" even when I know its geographically and technically impossible for anyone short of the NSA to get a positive match, much less a "confirmed" one. Second, I've been "confirmed" as User:Technoquat several times, after I intentionally started mimicing his own traits. So unless the admins or checkusers just decided to start believing that this "Technoquat" just up and moved to South Florida recently those should have been marked as unrelated not confirmed. Thirdly, you remember last spring that checkuser between two of my accounts that came up "possible" in February, but when they wanted to ban me over that Nazi flag thing, they retroactively changed the checkuser result to "confirmed" even though there was no new technical information available. Interesting stuff. Well, I find it interesting, I hope you do somewhat. Take care, Rayray LaBeouf (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit war?

Please backup your public claim that I like to edit war. Dave3457 (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)