Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

ECF grading system

Move text to Talk:ECF_grading_system. More relevant on article then a wider issue for WikiProject Chess. SunCreator (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dallas Chess Club

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dallas Chess Club

You guys might be best equipped to help out on this article and the AfD. The article was made by a new user, too, so the article could do with some work. If the club is as big (most active in the US?) as the article states, then it definitely passes WP:N. _Met^ty 02:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Eugenio Torre

Eugenio Torre article probably has copyright problems. Two sections look like they are copied directly from another source. Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm... the section "Torre breaks Chess Olympiad Record" is word for word the same as this blog on chess.com. Which came first is unclear to me; did chess.com copy us, or did we copy someone else? The chess.com blog post is dated July 17, 2007, and the content in question seems to have been added to Wikipedia before that date. What is clear is that the section there does not look like an encylopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That section reads like a newspaper article or something similar. There is a dead link at the end of the section and my guess is that it was copied from there. Much of the previous section is copied from the link at the end of that section. Bubba73 (talk), 19:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The page has been blanked because of copyright violations. MAybe someone can work on the article. Bubba73 (talk), 03:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The copyright violations have been removed from the article. Now the article needs to be expanded. Bubba73 (talk), 18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles to delete section

Do we really need this any more, now we have the Article Alerts section which lists AfDs for us?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really, if the article has the Chess project tag on its talk page. If the article has that tag it should show up within several hours. Some articles don't have the tag and sometimes people see the AfD before it is picked up by the software. Bubba73 (talk), 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One issue with Article Alerts (at least for me) is that it does not appear in your watchlist, so if you do not look at it specifically you may never know something is happening. SyG (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's true. You have to check the project page manually. Bubba73 (talk), 23:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

pronounce Rossolimo

How do you pronounce the last name of Nicolas Rossolimo? My first guess was ross-o-LEE-mo but looking at it, maybe it is ro-SO-li-mo or something. Bubba73 (talk), 02:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FIDE titles merge

At first I supported the merge of many pages to FIDE titles, including IM, FM, WGM, and WIM, but now I'm not sure. Your input is requested at Talk:FIDE titles#Merge maybe not a good idea. Quale (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There's another problem in that the moving of FIDE Titles to FIDE titles has created several double redirects. I fixed the four pages you listed above but if there are many more they'll all have to be done too.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the rest as well:)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a bot that is supposed to take care of double redirects within 24 hours. Bubba73 (talk), 03:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Chess titles and FIDE titles may need to be merged. Bubba73 (talk), 03:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect class

There is a redirect class but currently WikiChess does not include it, I think we should. There is a bot that can add them to pages see here. Reminded of this issue because of the recent merge of various articles into FIDE titles, all of which previous had Chess-WikiProject assessments and all now will become redirects. SunCreator (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have a list or category of redirects to chess articles. There are a lot of redirects to chess terms which are a lot easier to type than the full path. Bubba73 (talk), 06:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Equal

In several articles I saw something like "he came equal 4th at ... tornament". If a player, for example, shared places from 4 to 10 and became 9th or 10th by tiebreak, can we still say that he came equal 4th? --I Do Care (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The usual convention for ties without a tiebreak is e.g. 4th-10th, though you'd probably need to explain this the first it occurs in the text and/or tables. If course if a tiebreak (partially) resolves the order, you'd use the result of that - which could still include a few narrower tie groups. --Philcha (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Philcha. But it's still unclear for me and I would modify my question: when we see phrase "he came equal 4th at ... tornament" does it mean that a player tied from 4 to something (5, 6 ...10) but became 4th by tiebreak? --I Do Care (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Really brief reports would show only the post-tiebreak result, longer ones would give the background. If a report includes a table of results, it would usually show the post-tiebreak placings, but you'd notice that several players had the same score. -Philcha (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the answer to Do Care's question is not a simple yes or no. It depends on the tournament really, some use tiebreak for 4th place and higher, while others don't bother. Loosmark (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Importance of Kayden Troff

I believe that Kayden deserves to be bumped up to a mid importance level. He just became the North American Champion for all ages U-12, and recieved the title of candidate master. He is nearly top of the list in regular rating for all ages under 16, and has been at the top of the quick rated list for quite some time. He is also Utah Champion in nearly all categories, and all of this at the age of eleven! Can't Kayden be bumped up a level? GrandMattster 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to slightly disagree. My understanding of the scale would be something like:

• Top-class: World Chess Champions
• High-class: finalists of the World Chess Championship, Woman World Chess Champions
• Mid-class: got into the world top-10 (adult) at one point of time. Maybe also the Junior World Chess Champion.

Let's present it another way: how has Kayden Troff contributed to the development of the history of chess ? SyG (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree - consider that the articles on Grandmasters Larry Christiansen, Joel Benjamin and Lev Alburt, each of whom has won the U.S. Championship at least twice, are also considered "Low importance", like Troff's. There's no way that he's a more significant figure in chess history than they are. Krakatoa (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The importance scale is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Assessment#Importance scale. It advises that a Mid importance subject should "add important further details within its field, with some impact beyond it." I don't think Kayden is quite there yet. A Low Importance category doesn't mean he's insignificant; it's all relative.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it's certainly not a slight of him at all. IMO, the description should be rewritten. I doubt that even most World Champions (i.e. the subjects of "Top Level" articles, typically) have much, if any, "impact" beyond the "field" of chess. Krakatoa (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for your opinions. I'll go with the concensus. GrandMattster 14:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of Budapest Gambit

I have nominated Budapest Gambit for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Budapest Gambit. This is both to get constructive feedback and to have a hint of how the article should evolve to get to A-class. It does not need to be a pain, even high-level reviews would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help ! SyG (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this review has unfortunately generated very limited enthusiasm, so I have nominated the article for GA-review as well. If one of you masters the GA process and GA criteria, of course he is welcome to take the GA-review on. SyG (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I'm necessarily unenthusiastic; I've read over the article a number of times and I've thought about participating, but I guess I'm just a little intimidated by the level of detail for an opening I'm not that familiar with. I will consider doing a GA-review instead. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well looks like I don't need to - you have a GA reviewer already. You're very lucky - most people have to wait weeks!:)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's completely mesmerising. I was counting on a one-month-delay, typical for chess-related articles. Another good fortune: he seems to be an expert on the Budapest and has all the references ! Mmm... too much luck recently, maybe I should watch out my wife more closely.

In all cases thanks for your intended GA-review, and please do not hesitate to do additional comments on the Talk page ! SyG (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I started a review but like the above felt it was gonna take ages to I didn't post the bit I started. The Budapest naming to match the place is implied but not verified. SunCreator (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very happy to announce that Budapest Gambit has successfully undergone the GA-review, and now becomes a Good Article ! How long the road has been since I had a first glance on it, when it looked like that, more than three years ago. I am especially happy to know that an article on a chess opening can apply to Wikipedia standards, avoiding pitfalls like WP:NOTHOWTO. I would like to thank the other significant contributors to this article, notably Krakatoa, Bubba73, SunCreator and the reviewer Sasata. Cheers ! SyG (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Endgame articles overview and review

The creation of the Queen and pawn versus queen endgame‎ article made me think it would be a good time to review what endgame articles we have and which one we require. Below is the Chess endgame frequency table.

Chess endgame frequency table

Percent	Pieces	Pieces	Covering article or comment
8.45	rook	rook	Rook and pawn versus rook endgame extend article with pawns or create new Rook and pawns versus rook endgame?
6.76	rook & bishop	rook & knight	No existing article. Create Rook and bishop versus rook and knight endgame?
3.45	two rooks	two rooks	No existing article. Create Two rooks versus two rooks endgame?
3.37	rook & bishop	rook & bishop (same color)	No existing article. Create Rook and bishop versus rook and bishop endgame?
3.29	bishop	knight	No existing article. Create Bishop versus knight endgame?
3.09	rook & knight	rook & knight	No existing article. Create Rook and knight versus rook and knight endgame?
2.87	king & pawns	king (and pawns)	No existing article. Create King and pawns versus king endgame?
1.92	rook & bishop	rook & bishop (opposite color)	No existing article. Create Rook and bishop versus rook and bishop endgame?
1.87	queen	queen	No existing article. Create Queen versus queen endgame?
1.77	rook & bishop	rook	No existing article. Create Rook and bishop versus rook endgame?
1.65	bishop	bishop (same color)	No existing article. Create Same-colored bishop endgame?
1.56	knight	knight	No existing article. Create Knight versus knight endgame?
1.51	rook	bishop	No existing article. Create Rook versus bishop endgame?
1.42	rook & knight	rook	No existing article. Create Rook and knight versus rook endgame?
1.11	bishop	bishop (opposite color)	Opposite-colored bishops endgame
1.01	bishop	pawns	No existing article. To create?
0.97	rook	knight	No existing article. To create?
0.92	knight	pawns	No existing article. To create?
0.90	queen & minor piece	queen	No existing article. To create?
0.81	rook	two minor pieces	No existing article. To create?
0.75	rook	pawns	No existing article. To create?
0.69	queen	rook & minor piece	No existing article. To create?
0.67	rook & pawn	rook	No existing article. To create?
0.56	rook & two pawns	rook	No existing article. To create?
0.42	queen	pawns	Queen versus pawn endgame plus Queen versus pawns required?
0.40	queen	rook	No existing article. To create?
0.31	queen	two rooks	No existing article. To create?
0.23	king & one pawn	king	King and pawn versus king endgame
0.17	queen	minor piece	No existing article. To create?
0.09	queen & one pawn	queen	Queen and pawn versus queen endgame
0.08	queen	two minor pieces	No existing article. To create?
0.02	bishop & knight	king	Bishop and knight checkmate plus with pawn(s) required?
0.01	queen	three minor pieces	No existing article. To create?

Other endgame article we have are:

• Two knights endgame - Not in above table
• Pawnless chess endgame - Some overlap with above, but doesn't cover any one section completely as they all can have pawns.

So are the above: requiring an article or already covered in some other articles(which) or not notable enough to have an article. SunCreator (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they could be done, but there are problems. Most of the existing articles are simple cases where there is complete analysis and a technique (K+P vs. K, R+P vs. R, Q vs. P, etc). More complicated cases are covered in books but it gets to the point where there it is hard to say much that is specific and it would probably tend to go beyond what an encyclopedia article can cover. For instance rook and pawns versus rook and pawns would be very difficult to cover. There are articles: R+P vs. R, Lucena Position, Philidor Position, and Tarrasch rule (which often applies in these endings), but a good coverage would be pretty extensive. There are whole books on these things. Bubba73 (talk), 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That a bit confusing. If there are whole books why would there not be an an encyclopedia article to cover it? Would of thought if there are whole books that would indicate the notable of an article. SunCreator (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they are notable but there are whole books on, say, pawn endings or rook and pawn endings - it might be too large to cover. And only the simple cases reduce to a technique. Bubba73 (talk), 22:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

John Nunn wrote a 320-page book, Secrets of Rook Endings, just on rook and one pawn versus rook. Then there are lots of books on more complicated rook endings, and also books on bishop endings, knight endings, queen endings, pawn endings, bishop versus knight endings, queen versus rook/minor pieces endings, more general endgame books covering a wide variety of endgames, etc. So yes, once you get past relatively simple endings where a forced win or draw is demonstrable, it's very hard to just, say, set out five principles and say, "Here's how you play rook endings." Krakatoa (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The second edition of Nunn has 352 pages. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 03:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying because it's potentially complicated Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it? There is quite a good article on Opposite-colored bishops endgame but Same-colored bishops endgame would be to hard? Puzzled SunCreator (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) I'm not sure. Same-colored bishops endgame should be doable. Some of the others have so many different possible permutations and/or are so lightly covered in the literature (I've never seen a book on two rooks versus two rooks endings, for instance, although Endgame Artillery covers various combinations of endings with queens and rooks) that they wouldn't make for good articles. Krakatoa (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Once you get past a position where each side has at most one piece there isn't much complete analysis except for a few rare ones like queen versus two minor pieces with no pawns. These are briefly covered in pawnless chess endgames and fortress. Same-colored bishops is a possibility - there is some good analysis by Centurini. But even then when you get more than one pawn it may be unmanagable. Opposite-colored bishops is an exception (as far as the number of pawns) because sometimes two (or more) extra pawns aren't enough to win. Bubba73 (talk), 01:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Q vs. R w/o pawns has a section in Philidor position and pawnless chess endgames. R+B vs. R w/o pawns is in those two plus Cochrane Defense. Bubba73 (talk), 01:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Practical Endgame Play - beyond the basics by Glenn Flear has a 40-page chapter about R&B vs. R&N (with pawns) endgames (one of the most common endgames). There is one page of introduction, the bulk of which discusses B vs. N, and the rest consists of examples from games. Nothing is codified, so I don't think it would make a good article. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 02:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Chess tournament GA review

Chess tournament has been nominated as a Good Article. If you are able to review please do so. 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be depressing, but Chess tournament needs total redevelopment to make GA. Some aspects are over-emphasised while others are omitted, this means the structure needs to be redrawn to accommodate the new material and to provide a logical order, some of the references don't provide what's required (e.g. some refs to books don't have page numbers). --Philcha (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree. Which aspects are ommitted? SunCreator (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Now you've just put me on the spot :-/

• I'd be inclined to start with an overview of formats. That would provide defintions of terms that can be use din the rest of the article.
• I think the early history needs more. The knockout tournament in London in 1849 and a tournament in Amsterdam in 1851, both already mentioned, were important. All international tournaments took place in Great Britain until Paris 1867 (ref at Howard Staunton). London 1862 chess tournament was the first international round-robin (refs at Adolf Anderssen), but it would be important to identify the very first round-robin, and most reasoning for and reception for this new format.
• The range of levels, from school championships to those that contribute to the World Championship. Tournaments for the World Championship are not restricted to the Zonal-International-Candidates cycle. The World Championship was awarded on the result of tournaments in 1948 and World Chess Championship 2007. New York 1889 was meant to be for the Championship, although it did not work according to plan (refs at Wilhelm Steinitz).
• Team comps, incl Olympiads.
• Might be worth mentioning correspondence comps.
• etc., etc.

I'm afraid I can't contribute right now, as I'm reviewing 4 artciles for GA and reviwers have just in the last day opened GA reviews on 2 of my noms - aaarg! --Philcha (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

So many GA... Take care Philcha, beware of wikipediholism :-) SyG (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Positional chess

I'm thinking of changing the Redirect for Positional chess from Glossary of chess#P to Chess strategy some day, then putting in a sentence or two in the Chess strategy introductory section saying that positional chess or play is a style of play involving chess strategy in addition to chess tactics. Does anybody have any thoughts on this matter? Currently I see no article on Positional play, Positional play (chess), or Chess positional play. H Padleckas (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I just changed it to redirect to Glossary of chess#Positional play. I think that is better for the time being. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 15:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)