User talk:Bubba73/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit

Bubba,

The page is wrong as a whole...Kasparov lost to Deep Blue in Game 2, not game 1...I changed it in the body in hopes someone would realize that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.149 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I checked and that is game 1. Also, if you think there is an error like that, it would be better to discuss it on the articles talk page, rather than make a change that looks like vandalism. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources, one being from IBM [the creator of Deep Blue], that prove it was the second game he lost - which is why the controversy started...he had an overwhelming victory in the first game, yet in the second game the next day it seemed as if the computer was playing with human tendencies.

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/deepblue/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBzI7y8VNCA&feature=related&fb_source=message - documentary on the event and subsequent controversy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJarxpYyoFI - same thing really, different maker, check 31 seconds in. http://www.chessbase.com/columns/column.asp?pid=146#5.%20Round%202%20-%20Sunday,%20May%204th http://www.chesscorner.com/games/deepblue/deepblu.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.149 (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That is about the 1997 match. Deep Blue versus Kasparov, 1996, Game 1 is about the 1996 match. Compare the moves of the game. And see Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Horowitz and Kling, 1851

Hello! In Rook and pawn versus rook endgame you have editied Horowitz and Kling, 1851 position 1..Kb7 to 1..Kb8 and then back. I have reviewed it (yes, you are correct that if 1..Kb8? then 2.Rc5! and white wins faster). But I have another question. Why 1.Rc2+ ? Isn't it faster and more natural to play 1.Rf2 Rh1 2.Kf8 Rh8+ 3.Kg7 Re8 4.Kf7 Kd7 5. Rd2+ ? Gaz v pol (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Because 1. Rc2+ (and all of the other moves) is what is in the reference. Wikipedia goes by what is published in reliable sources. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Q re move request

Hi Bubba, for my own WP learning, have been tryin' to figure out how you made the QID move request that JohnCD picked up, but can't find anything. (How'd you *do* that?!) Thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving a page (see "Moves where the target name has an existing page") tells how to do it. If the page you are moving to does not exist, it is easy to do. However, a regular move back to QID would not work, since it still existed as a redirect page. You can do it by cut and paste, but that is not a good way to do it because it messes up the edit history. So, as in that link, I requested that the QID page (which was only a redirect page now) be deleted to the article could be moved back. The admin that did the deletion also did the move, but I was going to do it. It is very easy to do with a feature of wp:Twinkle. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thx, I think I understand better, did you: "tag the page that needs to be deleted to make way for the move (the target) with {{db-move|page to move from|reason for move}}"? (If so, am puzzled why I can't find the tagging in your contribution history. [Is that history removed since the page is now gone!?]) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I did. I checked my contributions, and it does not show up - probably because the article has been deleted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that explains it! (Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Rook and pawn vs. rook.

Hello! In Rook and pawn versus rook there is the following example:

	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

White wins with either side to move.

I have read the explanation and I am not sure it's correct. Here is what I suggest for black to defence: 1..Ke7 2.Rb8 Rc1 3.Kb7 Rb1+ 4.Ka8 Rc1 5.a7 Kd6! 6.Kb7 Rb1+ 7.Rc8 Rc1+ 8.Rd8 Rh1! 9.Rb6+ Kc5 and white cannot promote the pawn, at least right now. Probably white still can win after 10.Rb2 Ra1 11.Rb7 Kc6 12.Re1 Re7!! 13.R:e7 a8Q+ but I am not sure, maybe I lost some other way to defence for black. Anyway, isn't this too difficult to be omitted? Gaz v pol (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked the source, and that is what it says, except that it says that White wins easily. I put the position into the database and White does win, but it takes quite a few moves. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace of chess

Thank you; done. One is on my watchlist, the other is not. J S Ayer (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

.5 vs ½

FYI, [1]. (Of course I brought this up in the MoS discussion as a take-away, but it wasn't took away!) ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement ½ is the best, but unless I've misinterpreted it seems that MoS is hostile to it: "The use of the few Unicode symbols available for fractions (such as ½) is discouraged entirely, for accessibility reasons among others." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Fractions.) So, what of the future? (Change the MoS? Maybe this needs a character-coding programmer's input!?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There is an ASCII ½ character (#189), but it is in Unicode too. They have a point about accessibility, since I don't know how different things read it. But the accented letters that are used more and more are Unicode. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"white move" vs "White move"

The Go guys just finished their debate about this, choosing to cap only when distinctly referring to a player (as opposed to ref to a move, strategm, tactic, plan, idea, chance, shot, sacrifice, etc.): [2]. I think their issue is really identical to the chess issue, and they seem to have made a simple choice which removes all ambiguity what to use, but, does it look right to you? (Personally, I dunno – I think I agree w/ your earlier "White move" pref. But it seems Go & chess should use consistent methodology on it, since it's the same situations.) Interesting. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"White move" seems tricky to me. "A move by White" is referring to the player. But a "white move" could be like a "white piece", or is it equicalent to a "move by White" - I'm not sure. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting & informative sometimes to just look at the difference in question, to sense what our instincts say about it ... There's a Go diagram that marks out moves "1", a, and b.
The Go guys prefer:

After white move 1, Black turns at a, and makes thickness all the way out to b, which he then uses to mount a successful attack on the marked white group.

Over this:

After White move 1, Black turns at a, and makes thickness all the way out to b, which he then uses to mount a successful attack on the marked white group.

Analogous chess text:

After the white move 13.Nxd5, Black recaptures, then storms the kingside, mounting an attack on the white castled position.

Versus:

After the White move 13.Nxd5, Black recaptures, then storms the kingside, mounting an attack on the white castled position.

(What do your instincts say, Bubba? I'll tell ya what *mine* say ... "white move" is just ... wrong! [Okay on "white pawn", but a move is something abstract, a repositioning, so can't be "colored" white or black, only "owned" White or Black.]) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about this some more, and I slightly prefer "White move" for two reasons: (1) it is pretty much equivalent to "move by White", (2) think of a proper name there, e.g. "a Karpov move". However, I do not feel very strongly about it. I will go with the consensus. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nxe4 4. d4 d5) vs (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.d4 d5)

Example of the back-and-forth based on personal taste that'll for sure continue to go on, since ProjChess has no will to make a standard or convention on spacing: [3]. (I prefer the first, it looks cluttered and difficult to read IMO when bold doesn't have the space. Mrs. Hudson disagrees.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Murray (1913)

I scanned the page from Murray's book (A History of Chess (1913) stating that he believes chess came from India. If you are interested please send me an e-mail. Regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

MIA

I miss Quale. (Did the alligators get him?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that he hadn't been around for a while until you said that. I don't know anything. I live near the alligators. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Was gonna ask if you'd query a neighborhood alligator sometime to see if they "knew anything". But he's back now! -- so that conversation = unnecessary! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg

Sorry but I've nominated File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg for deletion because it does not pass our fair-use criteria. ww2censor (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Another article about a chess game

I'm somewhat out of touch with the chess project (haven't done anything really useful there since my 2009 article Queen and pawn versus queen endgame which you expanded), so how is Immortal Draw? Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, except that I think it needs a printed reference. I'm pretty sure I've seem it printed, but it is not in The World's Greatest Chess Games or 500 Master Games of Chess. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Under the section on the Vienna Game in Burgess' The Mammoth Book of Chess, while annotating a game beginning 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Na5? 4.Bxf7+! (the same with colours reversed and a white knight on c3), he mentions after 2...Nc6 that 2...Bc5 3.Na4?! Bxf2+!? "almost works for Black" and follows Hamppe-Meitner until the sixth move. He then substitutes the (faulty, as shown in the article) refutation 7.Qe1(!) for Hamppe's 7.Kc3. Double sharp (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no mention of Hamppe or Meitner, nor the name Immortal Draw. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is why my edit summary stated that he almost mentioned it. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fairy chess pieces

I noticed that there is a lack of articles about fairy chess pieces (apart from the main one). So I created archbishop (chess). But which pieces do you think are notable enough to deserve their own articles? Double sharp (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Chancellor (chess) is now available. Double sharp (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the amazon (Q+N) is that we don't have a picture for it in the chess diagram template. Double sharp (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about these, User:Ihardlythinkso knows a lot more about variants. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Highly Perfect Numbers.

No, my mistake was more fundamental than that, in that I had misread it. It should say 'positive divisors', as indeed it did, before I changed it. But thanks for changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.154.176 (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Back of correspondence chess card.tif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Back of correspondence chess card.tif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Apollo question on ref desk

Someone's asking about the designs for Apollo.[4] I gave an answer, but I suspect you remember the details better than I, especially as you were probably the one that looked into this some years back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. When you recently edited The Kentucky Fried Movie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aspect (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for rescuing File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg! =). Regards.

GoP_T^C_{N 20:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)}

Thank you for helping. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Harvcol tip

Thx for tip on Harvcol, Bubba! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Credit for original authorship of the solution of Pawn Duel?

It looks like you have added my expression of the solution to the Pawn Duel game to the Wikipedia page on the Pawn Duel game. It has been modified for context, but is essentially as i wrote it (under the forum name Bookman) to the Steve Jackson Games forum on November 15th, 2009. http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=64225

If you would be so kind as to add a reference to that post on the Pawn Duel page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawn_duel) I would appreciate it. 67.177.164.168 (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not do it - someone else must have done it. In fact, though, a blog is not supposed to be used as a reference. Who originated the name "Pawn Duel"? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit history seems to show you added that section--am I misreading it? I encountered the term pawn duel here: http://anyintelli.com/games/pawnduel/

Also, sjgames is a forum, not a blog. If that's not a valid reference, what is the best way to attribute my expression of the solution to me?67.177.164.168 (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You are talking about the "complete winning strategy" section, right? It was added in this edit by 69.114.7.70. All I did was change "you" and "AI" to "white" and "black", etc. I don't think there is much difference between a blog and a forum as far as being a reference, but I'll check on that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A forum is generally not acceptable, see WP:USERG. For what is acceptable, see wp:rs. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Also the description of the so-called winning strategy must be incomplete, or else there is an error. "the player merely mirrors the opponent's moves" is not a winning strategy in a game like this one in which moving backwards is allowed. If the opponent moves a pawn backwards one then forwards one repeated forever, the strategy would have you do the same and the game would never end. You wouldn't lose, but this is not a winning strategy. Quale (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If a player is in a position that would be zugzwang if he could not move backward, and he moves backward n squares, the strategy is for the other player to move on the same file n squares in the same direction. This is in Gardner's book. I think the whole section needs to be replaced with what is in Gardner, plus a link to Nim strategy. Also, I think the name needs to be changed because there is no reference to it, but there is a different name with a reference (see the article's talk page.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Northcott's nim does not have first move limitation. Pawn duel is a modification of Northcott nim: it is much simpler then general case of Northcott nim (just 3 pieces) and still a good puzzle due to the limitation on the first move. So it is not correct to say that the puzzles are equal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okkay (talk • contribs) 15:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Then we are left without a good reference for the game being called Pawn Duel. I suggest that the article be merged into nim. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong

Today, a day of mourning, for one of our greatest heroes. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I just got back into town - I hadn't heard. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to drop a bombshell that way. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Assessment for George Henry Mackenzie

I appreciate your views as a long-time editor of chess articles, and was wondering if you would mind doing a quality assessment for the George Henry Mackenzie article, which I have substantially expanded recently. If you don't, no worries, either. Thanks for your time. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! ChessPlayerLev (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Apollo11Honeysuckle.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Apollo11Honeysuckle.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Moongate page

Unmanned Surveyor 1 makes a footprint

Shepard right after recovery - ecstatic?

Apollo 11 astronauts - embarrassed?

Apollo 11 astronauts after flight - embarrassed?

Hello, I am Torah (Uktorah here... must be a popular name). You asked for a scan of the section where Moongate describes the neutral point etc. Please tell me how I can get this to you. I could email or use wetransfer or something?

I also read some other apparent facts about the Moon. What are your thoughts?

"The surface of the moon that faces the sun is hotter than boiling water." If so, how did the astronauts survive on the surface without being cooked? Even in a space suit, they would be like boil in the bag meals lol.

If there is a vaccuum on the Moon as opposed to an atmosphere, any dust on the surface would be compressed so there would not be any footprints.

If the astronauts travelled through the Van Allen belt, they would need 6 feet of lead to protect them from radiation, even inside the craft.

Finally (for now, anyway!) when Alan Shepherd touched down after becoming the first American astronaut into space the photographs showed him smiling as if he had just realised what he had done. He was ecstatic. The first supposed Moon landing astronauts touched down on Earth, and looked almost embarrassed, as if they knew they hadn't done what the the whole world believed they had done. Why weren't they ecstatic too?

I appreciate you may not know all the answers but your opinion as a science expert is highly appreciated. Do I have to do this tilde thing? I'm not sure. Uktorah (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

On my main page, in the left column of userboxes, near the end there is one that says "this editor can be reached by email" - click on "reached by email" and that should do it.

• "If so, how did the astronauts survive on the surface without being cooked? " They were in spacesuits. There is no atmosphere on the Moon to conduct heat. It is essentially the same as any spacewalk.

• "If there is a vaccuum [sic] on the Moon as opposed to an atmosphere, any dust on the surface would be compressed so there would not be any footprints." That is not true. See the Mythbusters episode, for instance. The first photo shows the unmanned Surveyor 1 making a footprint.

• "If the astronauts travelled [sic] through the Van Allen belt, they would need 6 feet of lead to protect them from radiation, even inside the craft." - That's not true.

• "looked embarrassed" - that is just someone's opinion. Shepard was picked up minutes after his flight. The Apollo 11 astronauts were picked up 4 days after the Moon landing. Also, right after they were picked up, they were wearing biohazard suits, so I don't see how you can say they looked embarrassed. This photo is one of the first ones taken of them after they returned that shows their faces. Are they embarrassed? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And you referenced von Braun's History of Space Travel for the neutral point between the Earth and Moon. I got the 1985 edition of that book today and I can't find it. Where is it? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Failure Is Not an Option shows film of Shepard right as he got off the rescue helicopter (seconds before the photo above). He doesn't seem ecstatic to me. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi Bubba, thought I should say, when the "dust settled" at Fork (chess), I noticed I removed a sentence you had added (under "Forking piece", para on pawn), a sentence referring back to the lead diag as example. I removed it because it just seemed a little redundant, and an equal sentence for knight para seemed it would just add to the redundancy. (So it was a ce decision in the moment, I wasn't "countermanding" you!) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC) p.s. Improving that article was fun. (What a mess!) ;)

OK. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Kodal Tri-X film.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Kodal Tri-X film.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Heading text

Hi Bubba,I was notified that you I guess are the administrator here of that page I think. Ok Thankyou, I'll look forward to creating a Page, Thanx, was kinda surprised to find my contribution gone, but I guess its subject to approval thereafter, but at least ya didnt kick me so to speak. Sorry Im just totally new to this. so thankyou for allowing me to submit my work that I did & Ill learn more bout establish. my own new page on Wiki...Oh Yea, I love Wiki, use it all the time to look stuff up, its a Wealth of Info, and so are the people that post the stuff. Thanx. Respectfully Topcat_Jimmy --From A Lefty Guitarist, Respectfully, 02:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not an administrator. I reverted your edit because of a couple of things. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it uses material from reliable sources. Secondly, your edit was not in the format used by WP articles. From another lefty guitarist, Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bubba73. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 05:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anonymouse321 (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Playoffs

I'm guessing that Braves wild card game was at least as painful for you to watch as it was for me. If the freakin' Cardinals manage to slither into the World Series again, I am going to be seriously irritated. >:( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yea it was. The Brave's defense was bad, but they did have some offense going. But I disagree with the call on the infield fly rule. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

suggestion

Hi. You might try posting your question on British and Southern accents to the language page, since it has little to do with entertainment. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to ask on Humanities instead of Entertainment, but clicked the wrong one. But Languages is better. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Bishop and knight mate

Hey. I was wondering, do you know of any website or video that clearly illustrates how to do the first part of a bishop and knight mate? I know how to bring the king from the bad corner to the good corner, but I have trouble getting the king to the bad corner in the first place.

By the way, I have played IM John Bartholomew, who has played Eugene Perelshteyn who has played Yehuda Gruenfeld who has played Mikhail Tal who has played Bent Larsen, who played Ossip Bernstein, who played James Mortimer, who played Paul Morphy. But I know that I am closer than that, for I can't believe that Perelsteyn is 6. Legolover26 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Examination of Apollo Moon photographs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Court Justices - retirement versus resignation

I'm sorry I didn't notice it before now, but I've responded to your question on Talk:List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. I hope the information is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ref desk

Hey, Bubba, your questions about the drug screening have raised the antennae of some of the ref desk folks. Could you maybe go to the ref desk talk page and offer an explanation? Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Why did you change

The chess figues of magnus carlsen, he is the best in the world as we speak, isn't wikipedia kind of a live lexicon, the fide page is not updated, He offically beat the record 8th of dec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.34.252 (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Because we use official ratings published by FIDE. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Rat Patrol

Hello! It is a copy of my report in the discussion of the article of "The Rat Patrol" Here are some screenshots of "The Rat Patrol" cast, they are better than existing screenshots, and can be uploaded under the same license. Can anyone (with uploading rights) add them to Wikipedia? http://tanda-mif-chgk.livejournal.com/769170.html I beg pardon for possible errors in my text. I do not own English, therefore must use a machine translator and prompts of acquaintances. I hope that severe errors in text are not present. 01:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Lana Roxe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lana Roxe (talk • contribs)

Chess Tiger

Back in February, you PRODded this (actually, you PROD2-ed it), and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not PROD it, but I agreed with the prod. At that time the article had only three sentences and no references. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerning chess time controls

Most of my original post on the talk page for time controls isn't even appearing b/c I don't know wtf im doing here in Wikipedia. You are free to hack away at my original post until its intelligible I probably should have formatted it as a list of known / unknown so information and links can be collected. Thanks for answering my question though and increment/decriment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesford42 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that everything you typed and saved is showing up. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Language ref desk

There's a question currently near the bottom of the page that it occurs to me you might be uniquely qualified to offer some insight on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice

Thank you for the advice on section headings. Ta muchly. :) Chessbloke (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Added a section or two to the Outline of chess

If you have time, please look them over and touch them up. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:03, 3 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) 04:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Olympic bold

You're right about the first place team being needlessly bolded. I should be more delicate about this, but bolding the winning Olympiad team is even more pointless than using bold face in the players section and it's equally as ugly from a typographic and design standpoint. I did notice this when I was making the fix to the players sections, but I was part way through the edits and just wanted to finish. Actually these days I wouldn't normally edit an article just to make a very small change like that (removing the unneeded bold) as it falls beneath my threshold of being worth an individual edit because it clogs the page history and watch lists. I normally would only do a tiny edit like that in conjunction with another edit, even a little one like a punctuation or MOS fix or adding an ISBN or whatever. Following this principle I wouldn't have made those small edits to the Olympiad articles either, but it was necessary in this particular circumstance. Quale (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll probably do them with AWB when I get time. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sicilian defense

You are the chess go-to guy. Any idea what this[5] is about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jude Frazier Acers

Bubba, I changed the spelling of Jude's middle name to the correct spelling. Jude himself told me his middle name was misspelled on Wikipedia. And I see why, it's near impossible to correct it! Here's a source: http://judeacers.com/?page_id=9 (ctrl+f or cmd+f "frazier") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.166.214 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, and thanks for the reference. I changed it back the first time, but someone else changed it the second time. The change looked like typical vandalism and there was a reference to the other (incorrect version). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Notation box pos=tocxxx

Reminder: there is no 'pos=tocright'. Only 'pos=tocleft' (also equiv to 'pos=toc' & 'pos=TOC').

And of course, there is 'pos=right' (the default if nothing specified), and the others, too. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I probably have forgotten that recently. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I REST MY CASE

i cite myself from the hard censored moon hoax article TALK: "I have had ton's of discussions too and it always ends in one way: deleted and censored posts and suspended users when the propaganda trolls are out of words and argument (as they had any in the first place?!) i see the same shit tactic is being used on wikipeda as well, by lame admins."

TROLL! 91.145.38.53 (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

FIDE Player Profile

I think the link to the FIDE Player Profile belongs in the External links section, although that's just my opinion. It is also my opinion that the info box is not actually part of the article, but rather an optional addition, so if any information is important it should be somewhere in the body of the article and not solely in the info box. If anyone has been removing the player profile links from the External links section then I think that is wrong, but clearly whoever would remove them disagrees. Quale (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw that someone took the GM category out of the Marie Sebag article, saying that there was no reference for it. I automatically looked in the external links for the FIDE info and it wasn't there. Then I found it by clicking on the rating. But I'm more used to it being in the external links, and there it has more of a description because it gives more than just the rating. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The link in the chess player info box is good, but it shouldn't be the only link to the FIDE player profile. The infob box link is too small (four digits in a font reduced to 90%) and too much of an Easter egg to expect a reader to be able to find it. Another issue is that the info box ratings only work for the top 500 rated players because of a limit on the number of ratings that are uploaded each month. We should put these external links back in the External links section. It looks like they were removed when the info boxes were updated to automatically track the player's current FIDE rating, but I think that was a mistake. Quale (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 Russian meteor event requested move

You may have participated in a prior informal discussion on changing the title of 2013 Russian meteor event.

This discussion has been closed in favor of a formal Requested Move.

You are invited to comment on the formal discussion here.

Thank you. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Chess problemist bios

Thanks for your work on chess problemist bios. Chess composition has never been my thing, so I don't have much in the way of references in my library to help contribute. Still, I think that chess problems and problemists are currently underdeveloped in Wikipedia. Over many years I've noticed only a few editors show great interest in this area, and they've mostly just passed through. Maybe because it seemed that there weren't many others here who shared their interests. Quale (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't care very much about problemists or compositions either, but one or two of them came up for deletion. But some of them have an impact on endgames, which I am interested in. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspected it was endgame composition that might be at least slightly inside your circle of chess interests. As the only type of problem that has much significance to actual chess play, endgame compositions would be more interesting to me than the standard three- or four-movers. Still, I've spent a little time on a book on retrograde analysis, so there's no good explanation for my interests. Quale (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Also thanks for creating the redirect I intended (Jean Preti) rather than the uninteresting typo redirect I actually made by mistake. Quale (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

AFD

I withdrew my nomination on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adolf_Zytogorski. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

RFA?

I been going though User:Scottywong/Admin scoring tool results and I saw your name listed near the top. I've seen some of your outstanding work in the reference desk, and maybe you might be interested in running for adminship? Let me know. Thanks Secret ^account 01:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even know about the Admin scoring tool. I appreciate your kind words, but I have my hands full and don't have time to do admin duties. I already spend more time on Wikipedia than I should. Thanks for the offer, though. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Glossary cleanup midi-project

Hi Bubba. Was thinking today about going thru the glossary over time, making consistent when linking within itself, or to articles, and other consistency cleanup. Then I saw your edit sum today. (Coincidence!) Anyway I think if I start going thru looking for patterns etc., there will be cases that don't fit. So for those cases and other Qs I might have along the way, mind if I come here and ask your opinion what best to do in them? (I'm sure this mini project will take some time. I like the idea of getting the glossary in a consistent status as a checkpoint, before it grows much bigger, since it will only continue to fall out of sync naturally, e.g. a def linking to an article since no term is available, then an editor adds the term later, and so forth). Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that if the reader is on the glossary page, it is better to link to another item in the glossary, so they can stay on that same page. That is more convenient and they are probably looking for short explanations. And from the glossary items, they always link to the main article, if that is what the reader wants. Linking to the main article when a link to another glossary item is available makes navigation harder. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And I'll use that methodology as a model. (Already lots of entries that follow it.) It's just that I know there will be weird cases I'll run into as I go thru. If/when, I'll bring here for your input after scratching my head over same, one per time. (Nothing goes as planned, just like chess games!) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made quite a few links that redirect to glossary topics, (1) to make it easier to link, and (2) so if it is changed in the glossary, it won't need to be changed everywhere it is used. An example is rank (chess). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That's smart. It raises a Q in my mind though ... what is the utility of a term in the Glossary, with a summary def, that matches an existing article by the same name? (I.e. how or why is it supposed that readers go to the Glossary in those cases? Is it supposed some readers browse the Glossary, or go to it directly to find a term? I just wonder how often that really happens!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The main article needs to tell more. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. But this is what I meant ... Let's say someone creates a mainspace article [[Rank (chess)]]. I assume it'd take over the redirect spot, then all refs go to the new article. When/why/how would anyone go to the Glossary entry after that? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see your point now. One thing - a mainspace article is not supposed to be a pure definition, and there probably isn't much you can say about rank except the definition. So probably no such article will be created soon. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bubba. It's a fun project so far, am half-way there. Ran into an interesting case where a term was linking to the mainspace, when there was nothing available to link to in the glossary, but, keeping with preference to link within the glossary when possible, there was a term in the other glossary (Glossary of chess problems), so I linked from the Chess glossary to the Chess problem glossary, instead of linking to mainspace. (That worked well, and I've actually repeated that technique a few times subsquently, too.)

One issue that's come up, that I haven't researched yet, is order. (I.e., how is alphanumeric order defined for terms? I mean, there are several ways to order, some are terrible [like my phone company uses for the phone book - have you ever had problems looking up an acronym for business, with or without spaces, in the phone book!?], some are great [the order system I like best is used by Leonard Maltin in his Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, because it is so simple: throw out "the"s and "A"s/"An"s and punctuation, and squish all the letters together of the remaining words in the movie title - it works easy/every time!]. I haven't checked how my dictionary orders things yet ... because I'm assuming there is probably a standard or convention within WP how they like to have order in their glossaries/lists. [I just don't know what that standard is, or where it's located.])

It's not a big deal of course, but there should be a method rather than not. For examples:

• What term should come first?: "Open tournament", or "Opening"
• What comes first?: "Odds", or "O-O-O"
• What comes first?: "Light squares", or "Light-square bishop"
• What comes first?: "En prise", or "Endgame"
• And, where would something go, that starts with a number, e.g.: "0-0-0"? (Maltin solves that by spelling all numbers, e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey is listed in the book as though it was "Two Thousand One ...".)

... and so on. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the proper order, but there must be some guideline somewhere. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Post first-pass

Well, I've finished going thru the glossary. The orig objective of changing mainspace links to intra-glossary links where available, blossomed into a bigger cleanup project than I'd planned: fixing alpha orders, identifying & making formatting more consistent (the entry name especially), eliminating/consolidating some circular defs, doing copyediting, adding some terms, adding some illustrations. After going thru the glossary once, I guess I'm feeling I could further tighten it up by going thru a 2nd time, based on what I learned in the first pass thru. But I wanted to ask for any your feedback you may have first. (Also, I'd like to resolve/research & find out the alphanumeric scheme WP wants for glossaries/dictionaries re special chars as earlier mentioned; perhaps I'll do that next. There are other issues too, that I don't expect are resolvable at this time, such as, should a term be British? American? both? in the entry name and in the definition. And if both, which is specified first, etc. Because the glossary currently has an inconsistent smattering of all of those those. But again I believe/understand that'd be a level of polish ProjChess is not ready to resolve anytime soon!) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really like having both spellings, but the last time I looked there were some in there. A problem comes about when both are in the title and someone decides to change it - and there is a link to it. But this can happen if only one spelling is given. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for that reason, I changed very few term entry names (titles). (But I did change a few that were ridiculously/inconveniently long to type in. The worse that happens is that existing links will no longer go directly to the term, but instead to top of Glossary.) Here is pretty much a complete inventory of the Brit/Amer inconsistencies, I haven't done anything with these, I thought a *plan* should be needed first before any changes are made:

• Defence -- title Brit only (no Amer "Defense")
• Pawn centre -- title Brit only
• Centre/Center -- title both Brit & Amer
• Control of the centre/center -- title both
• Equalise/equalize -- title both
• Centralization -- title Amer only (no Brit "Centralisation" [but is that even British? Hooper/Whyld have entry "Centralization" and they use British Eng])
• Color -- title Amer only
• Opposite-colored bishops -- title Amer only

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Oxford spelling plays a role in -ise versus -ize. Some people have suggested that Wikikpedia should generally prefer -ize on the grounds that it matches AmE spelling and is not incorrect in GBE, but this is controversial and probably not widely accepted. Template:term does actually cater to spelling variants, the docs have an example. I think this could be used to allow the links to the glossary sections to continue to work. Template:anchor might also be of use. Quale (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thx, I need to study those options. (Meantime, here's another issue occurred to me going thru the glossary first time ... should terms be lowercase unless proper nouns, as in a dictionary? That would seem less confusing/ambiguous. I found this too: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries#Use natural capitalization. Perhaps if changed to lowercase, the exising uppercase ref links can be preserved via anchor templates.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ship on Grass

File:ShipOnGrassMap.jpg

I was on the causeway. The ship was in one of the waterways. The grass is in the marsh.

What is actually being depicted in File:ShipOnGrass.jpg? Is there a river or something past the grass or is photoshop involved? Ryan Vesey 04:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No alteration of the photograph. Yes, there is a waterway there, but it looks like the ship is in the grass. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The causeway is about 4 miles long and it looks like that (ship in grass) most of the way. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Barnes

Hey, the Barnes article is looking good! If I would have known that was the same Barnes as in the Barnes opening I never would have nominated it. My bad. Sorry about that. OGBranniff (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The status of the article at the time you AfD'd it included content about Barnes opening as well as the other openings named after him. The article when you AfD'd it was very short in length, so there is no excuse for not reading the article before AfD'ing it, and no excuse for not noticing the obvious content re Barnes opening, since the article was so short. So your stated excuse makes no sense whatever, and is disingenuous. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is content from the very short Barnes article, at the time you AfD'd it, OGBranniff:

A variation of the Ruy Lopez called the "Barnes Defence" was named after him: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6?! (this is also sometimes known as the Smyslov Defence). A much more dubious variation named for him is Barnes Defence, 1.e4 f6 which he played against Andersson and Morphy, beating the latter. Barnes Opening, 1. f3, also bears his name.

You: "If I would have known that was the same Barnes as in the Barnes opening I never would have nominated it." Oh yes, that makes so much sense. Yes. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah man like you are so negative, brah... c'mon ease up a bit will ya dude? OGBranniff (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The article consisted of five sentences at the time you AfD'd it. Three of the five sentences were about openings named after Barnes, including "Barnes opening". Then after your thoughtless and spurious AfD, you come up with: "If I would have known that was the same Barnes as in the Barnes opening I never would have nominated it [for AfD]." Did you ever think of reading the article before trying to nuke it? (Not to mention all of the legwork you are supposed to do before opening an AfD, which you are either totally unfamiliar with, or intentionally ignore.) Oh but it is all my fault, excuse me: I should be *positive* in the face of your thoughtless & spurious AfD, and disingenuous excuse for filing it. (Then I can be considered a better "dude" in your view, oh happy that -- what a good deal for me. But I'm confused ... on what planet?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• FYI -- OGBranniff has been blocked indefinitely.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• And here is a bit more on the background. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Baby shot in stroller

What's up with this "Baby shot in stroller" story that everyone's talking about? That was in your hometown, no? Lampenstein (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. We were about 2 blocks from it when it happened. I heard that the baby was in the mother's arms, though. A tragedy. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 13:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Castling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algebraic notation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

File:BubbaStickers.JPG

I suspect those Bubba Gump bumper stickers are in violation of Fair Use, which I wouldn't have known at the time I uploaded them, some 5 years ago. I think I should delete the reference from your archive 4, and then request speedy deletion of the uploaded files. Is that OK with you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to requested move discussion

As a contributor to Golden Isles of Georgia, I think you might be able to give helpful input at Talk:Brunswick metropolitan area#Requested move. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I see what happened now... [Peter Lalic]

The (2d nomination) got copied to the article title. Off to fix. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh, and now there's a 3d, so I reclosed it as moot again...... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I reclosed the second nomination as moot, because after I reopened it, I saw there was a third. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the things that in there may be relevant to the new AfD. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Trapping pieces using pawn structure

I don't understand why you tagged my statement "a player might have the opportunity to trap an enemy piece using his pawn structure" with "citation needed", saying "this doesn't make much sense to me". How does it not make sense? There's a diagram illustrating it (the Noah's Ark Trap) right there on the page. - furrykef (Talk at me) 13:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It is the part about its weakness being its strength. In almost all cases you would like to exchange a weaker piece for a stronger one. "Citation needed" means that a reference is needed - not a diagram. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bubba. "Weakness as srength" is confusing, and unnecessarily colorful and enigmatic prose. (For example, it would be no more appropriate to say "a pawn's weakness is also its strength" than to say "a queen's strength is also its weakness", and, we do not describe the queen's power as "counterintuitive".) Also, there are many ways in which a pawn can exert strength -- not just by trapping pieces. (Suggesting the section should either be expanded, or abandoned.) Perhaps this discuss should be moved to the article Talk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

it is like saying that a rook's strength is that it is weaker than a queen. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

checkers set

my checkers set

I was just wondering where you found that checkers board that is in the picture and where can i buy one from. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.174.119 (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That is my checkers set. I bought it online. I think I got it from the American Checkers Federation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation

		The Surreal Barnstar
		(This is meant to be a "Defender of the Wiki" barnstar, but I think that graphic is boring and I happen to like surrealism, so you get this one!) Seriously, thx for your tireless defenses/defences of chess articles from the mold of mediocrity. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

New FEN diagrams

I took a quick look at your test use of the new FEN diagrams at Rook and pawn versus rook endgame. The placement of the coordinates around the boards is a little off on the FEN diagrams, but we can probably get someone to adjust the template. Otherwise I think it looks good, and −6500 bytes to the page size from a partial conversion is impressive. Of course FEN is brief for most endgame positions. Quale (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the spacing of the ranks and files the other day. See Template_talk:Chess_diagram-fen#minor point. I don't know how to fix it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not all diagrams are converted by my program. Only 8x8, no fairy pieces, and nothing on the squares except standard pieces (no digits, dots, x). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Event titles

Hi Bubba, regarding this edit, I'm thinking in these cases that the numeric qualifier is part of the event title, so WP:ORDINAL doesn't really apply. (For example see this article: Klaus Junge. There are references to events "8th German Championship", "2nd General Government-ch", "1st European Championship", and "3rd GG-ch". Do we want to change them to "eighth German Championship", etc.? I'm thinking not.) What say you? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right - these may actually be part of the official title. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think so, other examples: 1st Chess Olympiad, 1st Piatigorsky Cup, etc. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

pamelaness.com

Pamelaness (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

chess diagram

I put a new version of {{chess diagram}} in the sandbox, which uses a sandbox version of the lua module used by the fen template. you can see the differences between the sandbox version and the current live template in Template:Chess diagram/testcases. it turns out that almost all the infrastructure was already there, and there were just a few hard-to-find typos that I had to track down to make it all work. basically, there was already a function in there that converted the old format to fen, so I have it generate the fen first, then use the fen to generate the board. the new version can use either fen or the old diagram format. I'm not sure if the new template supports all of the pieces supported by the old template, but it does behave better with resizing, and the numbers=left option. Frietjes (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Great! So it will basically take the old format, convert it to FEN internally, and use that to generate the board. That should get the much better performance of the FEN version, right? That will be the best of both worlds! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

yes, that's what it does. the better performance is partially from the fact that the lua module generates a single board, then overlays the pieces, rather than the old version which generates 64 individual squares and glues them together. I could probably make it slightly faster by not converting to fen first, but it took less time to do so since the code was already there. Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If it converts to FEN, is it able to handle things that can be in the old format - black and white dots, Xs, digits, etc? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

probably not, I am going to rewrite it soon to address this issue. I haven't checked to see if we have all the components necessary to do this with the overlays, so I may have to have it generate the glued-together 64 image version. in any event, the new strategy will be to expand the FEN into an 8x8 array, then use a base function for generating the board. for the old format, I will simply load the values into an 8x8 array, and pass this to the base function for generating the board. I will have an option for changing the method used for rendering the board so we can do some performance tests. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There are so few that have those special things that I think that it would probably not be worth the effort to convert them to the FEN method - just pass them through and use the old method. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

okay, we now have a new version that should be pretty close to complete. the code takes either (a) fen or (b) old style (ascii) input. it converts the input into a 64 entry table with the old style values as entries. it then passes this position table to the chessboard function which loops through the entries and places the pieces on the board. in order for it to work, there must be a transparent background piece with a file name that matches the pattern. so far it looks like we have these for all the pieces. the old code wasn't using the transparent versions, but instead ones with light and dark backgrounds (twice as many pieces). one new feature is that the code can convert FEN to ASCII for you. for example, try this {{subst:#invoke:chessboard/sandbox|fen2ascii|fen=8/8/8/3k2p1/4p3/2b1P1pP/4KNP1/8}}. I added a board with some symbols on it to the test cases, but I haven't tested all of the symbols yet. Frietjes (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

see here. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Two knights endgame mistake?

Hello! In Two knights endgame there is your reference to the position below. I think the analysis is wrong. Why 8... Kh6? If Black plays 8... Kg7! then White's plan is broken. Maybe White will win, maybe not, but anyway it will be hard job, it seems there is no easy way for the White to win...

I think you are right. Houdini 2.0 doesn't see a win after 8...Kg7. 8...Kh6 looks like the best attempt for Black, but it isn't. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, then, Bubba73, may I ask you to edit the original article and correct this error, please? (I am not familiar with Wikipedia interface enough and I am afraid I will do something wrong). Thank you.Gaz v pol (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I put it in as a footnote only, because there is no reference for it, so it is wp:original research. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sobolevsky

P. Sobolevsky, Shakhmaty v SSSR, 1951

	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

White to move and win

In this problem composed by Sobolevsky, White wins by checkmating with two knights:

1. Nh8+ Kg8

2. Kxg2 Bf4

3. Ng6 Bh6!

4. Ng5 Bg7!

5. Ne7+ Kh8

6. Nf7+ Kh7

7. Bh4! Bf6!

8. Ng5+ Kh6

9. Ng8+ Kh5

10. Nxf6+! Kxh4

11. Nf3# (Nunn 1981:6).

Gaz v pol (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Another mistake in Two knights endgame.

I have spent a lot of time with this position, and I think the claim is not correct. White cannot win, Black can draw. 1. g6 Nc6! 2. g7 Nc8-e7!! and White have no way to win. 3. f5 Ng8. Gaz v pol (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Rinck, 1935, ECE #1780

	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

White to move wins

Houdini says that is a draw from the beginning. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Just in case, this example was planned to illustrate that three pawns can beat two knights, while the other examples show the opposite (knights can beat the pawns). So if you know another, correct position where pawns can beat the knights, it's a good idea to include it into the article. I have constructed several examples which are easy to understand while reading the article, but since original research is not allowed, we should find only examples from the books, correct?Gaz v pol (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Neumann, 1927 ECE #1782

	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

White to move and win

This position is one where the pawns beat the knights - according to Enc. of Chess Endings. But I haven't checked it on a computer. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand, maybe misprint? To change the original example (which was not correct) we are looking for the position, where 3 pawns can beat 2 knights. But you listed the position where you wrote "white to move and win", and white have 2 knights. So in this position (if the claim in the book is correct) 2 knights beat 3 pawns, while we are looking for the opposite. This position is not easy to analyze, I am not sure whether the claim in the book is correct or not. But what can be said for sure is that in this position Black 100% cannot win (even if Black to move), so in this position 3 pawns cannot beat 2 knights. Do you agree?Gaz v pol (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

whoops, I entered #1781 instead of 1782 - fixed now. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct example. White to move and win. Please, enter it into the article. Thank you!Gaz v pol (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know - it isn't too surprising that three pawns can beat two knights. The article is mainly to illustrate that although two knights can't force checkmate, sometimes they can if the other side has a pawn or even more pawns. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research

Hi Bubba73, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Chess talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Small mistake in Wrong rook pawn ?

Hello Bubba73! In Wrong rook pawn one of the examples is Goglidze versus Kasparian (see below). I think that the last claim (I put it big bold here on your page) is not correct. After 1... Bb3+ Black will not lose! Black can draw after 2. Ke7 Ba4! (instead of 2...Bxf7??) and White no way to win. Do you agree? Gaz v pol (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Houdini does not see a win after that. It is really the 2...Bxf7 that doesn't work, and I've made that change. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Goglidze vs. Kasparian, 1929

	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

Black to move draws with 1... Bg4+!

In this position from a 1929 game between Viktor Arsentievich Goglidze and Genrikh Kasparian, Black uses the tactic of offering the sacrifice of his bishop for the pawn on the e file to leave White with the wrong rook pawn:

1... Bg4+!

and the game was drawn twelve moves later. The bishop will remain on the c8 to h3 diagonal and sacrifice itself for the e-pawn if it advances to e6. (Note that 1... Bb3+ does not work because of 2. Ke7 Bxf7 3. h6+!) (van Perlo 2006:356).

Mistake in Chess endgame ?

Johann Berger 1914 (Fine & Benko diagram 1053)

	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

White to play wins. Black wins if his pieces are one rank more advanced (pawns on f3, g3, and h2, king on h3).

Hello Bubba73! In Chess endgame there is an example. I think the last claim in the example (I put it in bold) is not correct. If black pawns on f3, g3, and h2, king on h3, White still wins by 1. Q:f3 and Black have no way to draw, White wins easily. Do you agree? Gaz v pol (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. In that position, White wins if it is White to move; Black wins if it is Black to move. The book doesn't say anything about it being Black's move. The book intended for the queen to be on b8, White to move - then Black wins.

Many years ago I blew a position similar to this in a tournament. Black had only g and h pawns, I had the queen, and my king was closer. I couldn't see the win, and we drew. I missed several winning moves and the opponent missed several drawing moves. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, then, please, edit the text in the article, add about Q on b8 instead of a8 (I agree that with Q on b8 Black wins even if White to move).Gaz v pol (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in Queen versus pawn endgame ?

Hello Bubba73! In Queen versus pawn endgame there is an example (see below). I think that the last claim (I put it in bold here on your page) is not correct. Article claims that if the white king is anywhere but not on g7, then white to win. But imagine that white king is on h7 or h8. Then white cannot win (this follows from the same arguments as with king on g7). So the correct statement should be: "if the white king is on g7,h7 or h8, then black draws; but if the white king is anywhere else, white wins". If you agree with me, please, correct the article. Thank you! Gaz v pol (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right - I changed it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:09, 15 June 2013 (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

White to move, draw (a rare exception because the white king blocks the queen)

"Exceptions can occur when the king blocks the queen on a file or diagonal, as in this position.

1. Qh1+ Kb2!

White needs to pin the pawn by 2. Qh8, but the king blocks the pin.

2. Qb7+

This was White's only check which prevents the pawn from advancing, and Black responds

2... Kc1!

repeating the position. If the white king is anywhere else, the queen can pin the pawn and allow for the queen and then the king to approach (Fine & Benko 2003:530)."

File:Apollo1plaque.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Apollo1plaque.JPG

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

New Computer history article Dina St Johnston

I noticed a historian's paper and started an article on Dina St Johnston, it could use further development and wikifying if you're so inclined (or can share with somebody who is)! Your Ferranti Pegasus article has developed into something quite readable. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Mahjong

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Mahjong. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purble Place

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purble Place. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider Solitaire (Windows)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider Solitaire (Windows). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Index of chess articles

Thanks for catching that Index of chess articles needs a link to chessgames.com. I'm trying to fix the index up a bit. The first step was fixing links to redirect pages, which usually happens when the page was moved. In order for the "Related changes" feature to work I think the link has to be directly to the article. That's done, and now the only link to a redirect on the page is Stealth chess which should probably stay because the redirect target page would not otherwise be in the index. The next step is to try to check to see if all the pages under the Category:Chess hierarchy are in the index. (Possibly a few exceptional pages in the chess categories shouldn't be in the index, I'll know more when I do the comparison.) Quale (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I just realized the obvious, which is that my argument for keeping Stealth chess in the index doesn't make sense. "Related changes" will catch updates to the redirect page itself, but not to Games of the Discworld, so it isn't very useful. Quale (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the index. You are right that it needs to have the actual exact title of the article. When I look at the related changes to the article and see a Move, I try to update the index, but I miss some of them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

algebraic notation

Thanks for moving the template—I guess that's what we do in most of our articles. I do wonder why we put it after the lead, though, when it uses chess notation as well, usually in the very first sentence. Shouldn't the reader be warned right away? Not a big deal, but I'm just wondering if consensus was actually achieved on this point. Cobblet (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

When it was altered a few months ago, the option of the position was added. Since then the chess project has mainly been putting it to the side of the table of contents, mainly because it doesn't take up much space there. Also, in many articles, there is no notation in the lead (openings being the main exception to that). Another exception is biographies, where we try to put them in the first section that has notation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The other reason I don't really like placing the template next to the TOC is that the tops of the two boxes don't align for some reason. I think that's a more problematic visual issue than the extra white space created by putting it above the lead. And like you said, opening articles are always going to have notation in the lead. Would you mind me asking on WT:CHESS whether we should change the convention for opening articles? Cobblet (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Asking there will be a good idea. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Duophonic may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• such as [[Miles Davis]] ''[['Round About Midnight]]'', CL 949 mono, reissued in stereo as PC 8649).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

comma

Thanks, Bubba, of course you're correct about the comma. Thanks also for leading me to the Capablanca video on Youtube.GretDrabba (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

White vs. white

[6] "White when referring to the player; white when referring to pieces" just doesn't work in many cases. And it is nearly one of the only ProjChess conventions there is! (Pieces being lower-case, is practically the only other one.) I suggest when ProjChess gets around to making conventions, in all cases "White" s/b upper-case. (I mean, what's the difference between "The white knight on e5" and "The White knight on e5"? None that I see. So confusion/inconsistency would be eliminated then.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for "... the White knight ..." That should definitely be lower case. But "... White moves his knight", "White" is substituting for a person. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess you're not understanding me. The rule "upper-case when referring to players, lower-case when referring to pieces", doesn't work as simply as that rule pretends it does, an example is linked above at the beginning of my message where I changed "Carlsen white" to "Carlsen (White)" and Tocatta changed it to "Carlsen (white)". If the rule was so great, there wouldn't be that contention. (IMO the color in parens refers to the player, not pieces; but Tocatta thought different. You see how opinions differ with the current rule.) Not to mention there are many many cases where it isn't clear what's being referred to, pieces or players. (I could list many examples of same.) My point with the example "The White knight on e5", is that the sentence is equivalent to "White's knight on e5" -- it couldn't mean anything different. The point is, I have no problem with "The white knight on e5" as far as that single sentence/expression ... the trouble/problem is when that "rule" is extended to cover situations where it isn't so clear, pieces or the player. There are many examples of same, and, the linked example at the beginning of my message between Tocatta & I, is just one. My suggestion to simplify the rule to always capitalize, would avoid the contentions/inconsistencies when things aren't clear, without doing any damage/harm/confusion/disadvantage, since "the white knight" and "White's knight" are always the same meaning/synonyms. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I see your point about the link, with the colors in parentheses. There are situations like that where it isn't clear. But "the white knight on g5", "white" there is an adjective - the color of the piece. "White's knight" though, "White" is like a proper noun. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No. "White" as modifier shows ownership. "The White knight" shows White owns the piece. "The white knight" is describing the color of the piece (i.e. it is not pink). Take this example: "The White position is weak." vs. "The white position is weak." And there are countless more examples where the "rule" is not helpful and leads to inconsistencies and confusion. (There *is* no confusion with "The White knight on e5" since White = ownership, "the knight belongs to White".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is, the "rule" can be executed clearly in such a case as "The white knight on e5". But the rule breaks down in other contexts as shown. And there are many more contexts where it is confusing and leads to inconsistecy. So my conclusion then, since the rule only works "part of the time", those cases where it does not work leads to ... a mess of inconsistent application and confusion and reverting (as above between Tocatta & I). All of that can be fixed if the rule is replaced with a simpler rule, to always capitalize "White". And there is no harm in that, since in the "most harmful example", "The White knight on e5", there is no harm since "White" conveys ownership -- White owns the knight, not Black. So the rule simplification always works, with no down-side. That is my point. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

All of the following are gray areas and lead to inconsistent results (including reverts, depending on each editor's individual interpretation, which can differ) when applying the current "rule":

• The White/white kingside. The White/white flank.
• The White/white structure. The White/white pawn structure. The White/white pawn chain.
• The White/white move/idea/plan/strategy/attack/defense/weakness/threat.
• The White/white position. The White/white castle position. The White/white formation. The White/white pawn formation.
• etc.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This is what The Oxford Companion to Chess says on the matter: "White, the player who moves the lighter colored pieces and pawns. These are called white regardless of their actual color." This is the way the Oxford Companion does it, and the first "White" is done specifically, not because it is the first word in the sentence. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok I see that, thanks. (So far I'm seeing Hooper/Whyld use lower-case consistently when preferencing a piece name, caps when referring to the players. But I need to continue exploring in that book, so far I haven't found any examples what they do with any of the gray areas listed above. [Perhaps I'll find some; or perhaps they avoid those by rewording, trouble is if that is the case, we don't do that on WP and many times use the gray expressions above. Anyway I'll continue looking in the my edition of Oxford Companion, at least I'm curious what they do.] However I did find an example already that shows that Tocatta is consistent w/ Hooper/Whyld -- the entry for "Alapin", at the bottom, has "'Attakinsky' (white)". [So, the interpretation to arrive at that must be "playing the white pieces" rather than "is playing as the White player". But how could an editor like me know which interpretation to use with the rule we have w/o being cognizant of that precedent used in that book?!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If one inspects the caption in the diagram in this section, "(Black)" seems to be the better choice (not "(black)") since the reference to color refers to the player and could even replace the player name. (So one might ask, what is the difference between this example, and the Magnus table linked above.) So you can see how this is very confusing, and leads to inconsistent application of the "rule". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Ihardlythinkso, maybe this is a simpler way of looking at it. "White" when used as a noun; "white" when used as an adjective. "White's kingside", but "the white kingside." I know it's odd that chess literature uses a German capitalization convention in this one specific case, but chess players have always been an odd bunch :) Cobblet (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be definitive and usable without inconsistencies or "judgement calls" I think, so I like that idea from that perspective. (It isnt' the current WP:CHESS "Cap when referring to the player, small when referring to pieces", so the understanding of WP:CHESS standard should be replaced by your idea, if accepted, on the project page.) But what about these?:

• Joel Benjamin was White in that game.
• Joel Benjamin was white in that game.

(Noun or adjective?) Also this:

• The White move 1.e4.
• The white move 1.e4.

(In the second case, "white" is an adjective, but the modifying quality is that of possession, not of color as in "the color of the move is white color".)

And here's one from the lead of Vienna Game, Frankenstein-Dracula Variation:

• Alexei Shirov had also played this in a simultaneous exhibition with black in Canada 2011.

(Word "black" is used as a noun. But often I see "with black" in lowercase as above, I presume the reason is because it is shorthand for "with the black pieces" which refers to pieces.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"With black" is not acceptable shorthand for "with the black pieces" since there is no definition of "with" that makes sense here; "as Black" is what I would write. Cobblet (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I did a limited search of the London Guardian and The New York Times, and they both seem to have taken Ihardlythinkso's suggestion, as they use upper-case letters for White and Black, in all cases, noun or adjective, when referring to the player or the pieces -- except of course when they refer to the "white squares" or the "dark-colored squares".GretDrabba (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

[This one in the NYT uses lower-case "white pieces". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Good find, Bubba, that 1984 example also uses a lower case "black pieces". In my opinion, the rule on this one is that since it is a convention of chess writing that exists outside of the rules of standard English usage (which would require the lowercase), then the solution is to do as people here have been doing -- to look around to see if there is a consensus in the current culture of chess writing. One way to do that it to consider other publications, including what Robert Byrne was doing in that example in the NYTimes, and also see if recent articles are since maintaining Byrnes' style.

But aside from conventional considerations, my own sense is that the rule: "White when referring to the player; white when referring to pieces" seems, in my opinion, not to work as well as using initial uppercase letters for players and pieces, because of the examples already discussed above. In fact, the rule, with its switching back-and-forth seems clumsy in practice. The idea that white is taking the place of a proper noun isn't so helpful, since pronouns such as the word "you" or "he" don't require an uppercase, though of course "I" does.GretDrabba (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I just googled "New York Times", "chess", and "white pieces" and that was the first thing that came up. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:GretDrabba, perhaps the discussion at WT:CHESS#upper and lower case will interest you. Cobblet (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked at that discussion at WT:CHESS#upper and lower case, like you said I might, and, I’m sorry, but that debate’s got problems and seems to go nowhere. It’s unresolved anyway. Starting with a little misinterpretation that ironically enough begins: “The policy is clear ...” The fact is, the particular WP policy of w’s and b’s as adjectives isn’t stated in WP:MOS and you can’t extrapolate it without shifting the meaning of things.

It’s a shame that first error goes unchallenged, because more errors get built on it. For example, this: ‘... in the first three cases "was", "took" and "have" are copula verbs, so "white" is an adjective and should remain uncapitalized." Who is it that says adjectives should not be capitalized? It appears to be the “interpretation” mentioned above.

And who says that copula verbs have to be followed by adjectives? I think nobody will go along with that. And the idea that “white” is an adjective in that sentence (I didn’t quote it, but here it is: “Joel Benjamin was White...”) ... I don’t think so. According to Fowler’s dictionary a noun is a word used as the name of a person place or thing. Of course, nobody’s saying that words, nouns included, can’t play different roles at the same time.

The solution is way simpler than all that. To find out how chess writing deals with the w’s and b’s as adjectives: you just have to look around. Here’s what I found: Sources that use upper case for White and Black adjectives include: Five recent chess articles in the New York Times and five in the Guardian, and five books: Soltis, Nimzovich, Bent Larsen, Ken Smith, Sillman.

Those that use lower case include: a book by Nimzovich (I guess he does it both ways) and an article by Robert Byrne in the New York Times from 1984.

Other considerations can come into play, like a magazine like Harpers might look more sedate by mixing things up, but a page from WP that pops up on various screens ... ? That’s another matter.GretDrabba (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to discuss this on the chess project chess page where many people will see it. Very few people will see it here. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@GretDrabba: Fair enough. Indeed I was only trying to explain why it seems more common that constructions of the form "X was white" tend to leave the last word uncapitalized. I'm not a professional linguist and my opinion on the matter is not authoritative (and having looked in the OED, I've just realized I might be completely wrong on the matter). I'd like to see the five cases in the New York Times and the Guardian though, because I was looking into newspaper sources myself yesterday and I was pretty sure they don't capitalize "white" when it's an adjective: in fact, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (p. 63) explicitly says under "chess", "Black and White are capitalized as nouns but not as adjectives." (You can search inside the book on Amazon.com.) Cobblet (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand your interest in what articles I looked at, but I didn’t take notes, it was just a casual search out of my own curiosity to see what’s out there. The Times won’t let me back on until November without a subscription, but if that’s what the Times Manual of Style says, I have to think that I may have gotten it completely wrong. Sorry about that, if that’s the case. Of course, a proper survey would have to be more scientific than the casual scanning I was doing. But the point remains that there’s not just one way of dealing with the “W’s” and the “B’s” -- people seem to go either way. I probably feel the same way. On the one hand, it looks cleaner and more ... literary not to have caps popping all over the page, but Wikipedia is also capable in a very great way of sinking so deeply into the chess player’s world -- with opening after opening, variations, endgames, diagrams, animated diagrams -- that it can actually take on something of the aspect of each subject that it covers and be more truly encyclopedic than the Encyclopedia Britannica ever imagined. And when Wikipedia goes deep into that territory -- chess players maybe appreciate those uppercase letters -- and why not, since who else but chess players would be on that particular page? It’s hard to find a compromise when you’ve got “true believers” on both sides, but maybe some kind of rule of toleration could be invented for accommodating various styles and also for letting Wikipedia be different in that way from things that went before.GretDrabba (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@Cobblett: You had me thinking I was mistaken (in your last post), but it turns out I wasn't. (I found the time to do a bit of research.) I'd suggested that I had seen the New York Times and the Guardian capitalize “white” and “black” when they were adjectives, and you indicated you wanted me to show you the proof because you were “pretty sure they don't” do that. So I double-checked, and it appears that in fact they do. (see below) And, by the way, I found these instances in spite of the fact the Times limits searches for non-subscribers. Of course, this doesn’t deny that the Times also uses lower case fonts.

So I regret having to correcting you once again about something, but I do it at your invitation. And, if I may add, this your most recent error is completely understandable, since what I found may of course be contrary to what you found on Amazon.com in the Times Manual of Style. Also, I completely respect and appreciate your wanting to keep me honest, and I don’t want to discourage you from doing that. I’m sure I will make an error some time in the future, and I hope you'll be there.

Of course the original point I was making -- that it’s possible to find examples of the use of both cases, upper and lower, in books and newspapers -- was not, I’m afraid, a very debatable point.

Here are five examples from the Times and Guardian along with a quote from the articles:

1.) The New York Times, February 18, 2008, Dylan Loeb McClain, “Topalov Leads Super Tournament”: The quote: “Anand also got off to a good start, beating Alexei Shirov of Spain with the Black pieces.”

2.) The New York Times, January 13, 2008, Dylan Loeb McClain, “Corus Starts With Upsets”: The quote: “And Magnus Carlsen of Norway, the 17-year-old prodigy, won with the Black pieces when his opponent resigned while there was still a lot of play left in the game.”

3.) The Guardian, January 31, 2011, Ronan Bennett and Daniel King, “Chess: When One False Move is Fatal”, two quotes in the same article: “If the Black king moves to the h-file, there's always the danger of mate.” and also: “The player of the Black pieces must have reasoned as Ronan did – and fell straight into 2 Nh4+.”

4.) The Guardian, September 23, 2006, Jonathan Speelman, “Jonathan Speelman on Chess”, The quote: “Black's last chance is somehow to tie the White pieces down but Short was able to target the f3 pawn after which it was plain sailing.”

5.) The Guardian, July 21, 2007, Jonathan Speelman, “Jonathan Speelman on Chess”, The quote: “It reminds me of a win years ago at Hastings by Ulf Andersson against George Botterill when in even more extraordinary fashion Black doubled his rooks behind a pawn on a6 blockaded by a White pawn on a5.”GretDrabba (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to have this discussion on the chess project talk page or the talk page of one of you two. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

flag photo

Greetings Bubba 73 - Jud McCrane. I am writing you (but it looks like it will be posted) in hopes that my wife and I can get a little more direct permission from you to use your picture of the Flag flown on the first manned US spaceflight (Freedom 7 in 1961) and the 100th (STS-71 in 1995). My wife is an elementary school teacher and has spent a lot of time putting together with me a kids book called "The First Flag in Space". Her first job was at Cocoa Beach Elementary School and she told me about how there was a big ceremony after Alan Shepard put the school flag behind his seat for that flight. We have spent years trying to track it down, apparently it was at the Smithsonian in back before it went up on the 100th flight. Recent year phone calls let us know it was now in Astronaut Hall of Fame. We have been meaning to get there and I just now found your picture of it on display. We will gladly attribute credit to you. Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.8.231 (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, email sent to you. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Chess user

Wasn't there an edit-war of some kind going on a few months ago with some chess fan who was eventually blocked? I'm trying to figure out if Fishfacegurl might be that user, or if it's a coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes there was. The one that was banned was OGBrannif (not sure if I spelled that right). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be OGBranniff (talk · contribs). Does the behavior of Fishface gurl (talk · contribs) bear any similarity? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got a suspicion I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I'm not sure either way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. We just had a bunch of suspected sockpuppets at wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Lilov. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

here's my math website

www.oddperfectnumbers.com; not really sure why Erdos assigned numbers to zee ppls; it's each to his/her own ability99.142.27.252 (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

About Alvaro Dias Huizar

Dear Bubba73:

I wrotte you in order to explain you respectfully the reason of my article. Firstly, this article was created folowing the right confered by a formal wikipedia category (FIDE Masters); secondly, concerning notablity, it could be posible make a stub of this person because is a rare case in his poor country become a chess master, having many nationalities and becoming PhD in Law in France making him strange personality in chess world. Third, there are other players FIDE Masters in wikipedia that never study nothing and however they are in wiki because only participated as a second in a chess Olimpiad or a cheater like Ivanov Borislav without nothing of merit to become a FIDE Master. If you play chess probably you know the difficulty to become a Master and more when you'are a lawyer, engineer or other...like Kamsky. (. Concerning the raiting, you know that chess raiting are relative each year, it depends of your time and money to play tournaments; the more important case Anand (He is not the best ELO in the world but he is the World Champion, other example Bobby Fischer die not with the title or the raiting prouving his level, but everybody knows him one of the best ever! I coincide with you that not all FIDE Masters have the right to be there because they are only that (a common chess players); particularly in this case i know Mr Dias in a tournament last year and his personality is awesome by his intelectual discuss and his chess capacity. In all case if the decision is delate the article consider also propose disappear the category FIDE Master on wikipedia.

Respectfully and kind regards. fidebairawiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidebairawiki (talk • contribs) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

please notice User ip 111.243.34.140

Hi, Bubba73 , please notice , this User ip 111.243.34.140 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/111.243.34.140 , Vandalism a lot of article, please stop it , thank you Buglerazedg21dnlole (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I reported it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chess handicap/GA1

Chess handicap, an article to which you have contributed, has been nominated for Good Article. The review is on hold to allow time for issues raised to be discussed or addressed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bubba73. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 06:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Darylgolden^(talk) 06:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

On the so-called "Moon hoax"

Hello from Bulgaria!

If you remember, about four years ago I had a dispute with you and others in Wikipedia on the so-called "Moon hoax", insisting that there was one. On 2 October 2010, with the immense help of the participants in the Russian "airbase.ru" forum, I finally realised that I was wrong (see this discussion page in Russian; I hope that its machine translation would be understandable for you). Since then, when I have time, I participate there having fun with the so-called "refuters" (the term used there), one of which I once was.

So I'd like to let you know that. I know you're interested in space technology, and so am I. It's sad that some put one of the greatest achievements of mankind (and the USA in particular) into the "dark zone" of world conspiracies and criminal political affairs. I think the only way to counter this illiteracy is education and self-education. So, keep educating people! Space exploration is a bright activity uniting mankind, a road to our future. It's not to be smeared with accusations in falsifications, no matter if speaking of the Americans, the Russians, or the Chinese. --Лъчезар☭共产主义万岁★ 10:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Your cut-and-paste move of Talk:Steinitz Variation

With your experience here, you should know better than to do a cut-and-paste move of a page with significant edit history. Please take care to avoid doing so in the future. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is only a talk page. And since the other page existed, I'd have to request a move, as far as I know. Or either request a deletion of the other page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)