Talk:Chess tournament

Assessment for B-class
Here is my assessment of the article (this version) against the criteria for B-class.
 * 1) "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary." No problem on this side.
 * 2) "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." I am uneasy with several statements of the article. For example, let's take a few sentences from the "History" paragraph:
 * "This first tournament, known as the London 1851, would set the precedents for the thousands of international chess tournaments that would precede it": Obviously what is meant is "...that would follow it", and not "...that would precede it". Then what precedents are we talking about ? If this is in terms of format (knock-out), most of the tournaments that came after this one had a different format (e.g. round robin), so no precedent was set.
 * "Adolf Anderssen of Germany won the London 1851 tournament and thereby unofficially became the first "World's Best Chess Player"." This is just misquoted. The reference says Anderssen became the World's Best Chess Player", but not that it was the first time.
 * "The London 1851 tournament not only standardized some of the rules of chess" I am afraid it did not standardise any rule of chess, even if the idea of a "Chess Parliament" was talked about at first.


 * 1) "The article has a defined structure." No problem on this side.
 * 2) "The article is reasonably well written." No problem on this side.
 * 3) "The article contains supporting materials where appropriate." No problem on this side.
 * 4) "The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way." No problem on this side.

Also there is no mention of tournaments for computer chess in the sections, although it is mentioned in the Lead.

I think the article is close to B-class but the criterium 2 needs a bit of work. SyG (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Great review SyG. Here are the changes I have made since. I believe I have addressed all the issues including the edition of a small section on computer chess in tournaments. Thanks again,  α Яβ ιτ Я α Я ι ŁΨθ  ( talk ) 23:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have quickly read the article again, and I think you addressed my concerns on criteria 2. So I am raising the article to B-class. SyG (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

early tournaments
The London tournament of 1851 was the first international tournament, but there were others (non-international) before that. Bubba73 (talk), 05:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a reference for this? I did a quick internet search but I was only able to find information on the London tournament.  α Яβ ιτ Я α Я ι ŁΨθ  ( talk ) 22:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a tournament in Leeds in 1841, Oxford Companion to Chess. Somewhere I read about one in France in the 1700s, but I don't remember where I saw it or any more details.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Tournament first used as a chess term", 1841, Leeds, here. Bubba73 (talk), 05:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is someone talking about such matters. Bubba73 (talk), 05:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Under drawn game
Under Drawn game "If a player claims a draw according to the rules of chess, the player must immediately stop both clocks and record the draw claim."

This isn't right. The player isn't required to stop the clocks. Under rule 6.12(b) a player may stop the clock to call the director. But even calling the director may not be necessary if the opponent agrees that it is a draw. And even if you do have to call the director, you are not required to stop the clock. Bubba73 (talk), 15:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I believe I have clarified this .  α Яβ ιτ Я α Я ι ŁΨθ  ( talk ) 22:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rules section
First off, a big thank you to the authors of this article. This note is meant to improve the article, not to gut it. :-)

The thing I object to in the article is the rules section which I think focuses too much on the rules of chess in general, and that stuff is already covered in rules of chess making the coverage here much of a duplication. That does not mean that the article cannot support a rules section, because there are rules particular to tournaments.

If we look at the FIDE handbook, I feel the "rules" covered in this article is too much on what is called "Laws of Chess", chapter E.I. However, section "C: General Rules and Recommendations for Tournaments" seems to be of more relevance.

I believe this article should refer as much as it can to Rules of chess or other articles to discuss the things like "player conduct", "the drawn game", "the chess clock" and so on. Although most serious chess is indeed tournament chess, these rules are valid for match play as well. However, rules on invitation, eligibility, and drawing of lots are particular to tournaments, and should have more coverage in this article. If anyone wants to summarize the rather dreary rules of chapter C in the FIDE handbook, that would be great. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

first international tournament
Alfonso Ceron mentions an international tournament in the 1500s (only four players from two countries though). Bubba73 (talk), 00:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Player conduct
This section seems suspect. Have amended some parts that seemed incorrect. It could do with some inline references. SunCreator (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

number of players
Does the article need to say something about the number of players? With only two players it is a match rather than a tournament. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 15:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

sections
I think it would be better to (1) put Format section above Rules section, (2) put Time Control section under Rules. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 15:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, the 'rules' section should probably be a bit further down in the article.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 13:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Section of strongest tournaments
The strongest tournaments to date have included a category XXI section.

Now some tournaments are in XXII section (as Tal Memorial 2012: 2776). Demon Witch (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Number of wins in major recurring chess tournaments
I think the Number of wins in major recurring chess tournaments section should be removed. It's a large, unwieldy table, with the players near the bottom chosen nearly at random but with a very strong bias towards players in the current era. This is inherent in the idea of "major recurring chess tournaments", which apparently excludes the Soviet championship for reasons not clear to me, giving rise to WP:OR concerns about what is considered "major recurring". Nakamura is a very strong player, but he's listed solely for a (very fine) win at Wijk aan Zee, when Portisch has four wins there and doesn't appear in the table. Adding Portisch would not fix the problem because there are other players missing too, such as Short who has two victories there. There are other problems, such as crediting Botvinnik for winning one WC tournament and four matches. He actually won three WC contests and retained the title twice in drawn matches. I think it's arguable whether a drawn match counts as a tournament or match victory. (I think generally the rules call for the prize money to be split equally in a drawn match even though the champion retains the title.)   The selective inclusion of players is a WP:OR nightmare and trying to fix it would require making the table quite large, unless perhaps it were limited to the top 10. Quale (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Replying to myself: After consideration I can see a good argument for excluding the Soviet Championship since only Soviet players could compete, although realistically few players in the West could have been successful against players from the USSR during most of those years. Quale (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chess tournament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722025232/http://ilib.mirror1.mccme.ru/djvu/bib-kvant/chess.htm to http://ilib.mirror1.mccme.ru/djvu/bib-kvant/chess.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Tournament categories
So that means that tournament's strength or prestige is determined retroactively.

So as there is not a system in place that would roughly ensure quality/strength of a tournament, a word would be nice to explain how those strong tournaments happen (for example Herceg Novi or that Zurich tournament)? Is it money, by chance, location... What is it? 213.149.61.151 (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Tournament categories 2
FIDE keeps 3 ELO ratings. One for standard, one for blitz and one for rapid chess. The last two are rather new (around 2000). And player's rating for standard chess on average is lower than the other two. So it is important to distinguish between the three/two. There hasn't been a tournament with average ELO rating over 2800, but there has been a tournament with average blitz/rapid ELO rating over 2800. 213.149.61.151 (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)