Talk:FIDE Grand Prix 2019

Possible Outcomes
If I am reading the requirements correctly, Wesley So needs to win one of the remaining matches without resorting to tiebreaks, and the overall tournament, and he needs Maxime Vachier-Lagrave to lose against Andreikin. That would give So 14 (or 15) points to MVL's 14, and So gets the tiebreaker by winning one tournament (to MVL's 0 tourney wins). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.245.110.160 (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Which part of the article does this affect? (Please note that this talk page is for discussing how to edit the article, not for general discussions about the article topic.)
 * By the way, the convention is to add new sections at the bottom (as automatically happens when you use the &ldquo;New section&rdquo; link at the top. Your contribution is less likely to be noticed if you put it up here. Joriki (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It affected when to change So's highlight in the final table to the color corresponding to "Can no longer qualify for Candidates via Grand Prix".

After the most recent round of tiebreaks, it seems to me that Ian needs to win the tournament, regardless of tiebreaks, else MVL has qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.88.79 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

rating in GP points table?
I don't see the point of putting the rating in the GP points table, because the GP runs throughout the year, and ratings change during the year. It shouldn't be in the GP points tables for other Grand Prix articles either, like FIDE Grand Prix 2017. Adpete (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've also just noticed that it makes the table so wide that it is hard to read on some devices. I proposed removing both rating and average points, because they do not add much. Adpete (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed the ratings and put the qualifying ratings in the player table further up instead. I was going to remove the average ratings during the upcoming tournament anyway since they make no sense while a tournament is ongoing. Joriki (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

colours in GP table
I think we've gone a bit overboard with the colours in the GP points table. Wins and runner-up finishes should stand out. But as it stands, there is so much colour that the wrong things stand out: the bright red (1st round loser) and yellow (2nd round loser) stand out the most. Can we agree to remove some of the colours? How about just red for a tournament winner and yellow for a runner-up? (Reserving green for the overall GP winners). Adpete (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed the red (no need for an extra colour, since the standard light gray wasn't being used) and changed the remaining colours so green is reserved for qualified players. I think the rest is OK as it is; it conveys information and isn't too full of colour now (for my taste). Joriki (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That is a big improvement. I'd like a little less colour myself, but it is a good compromise. Adpete (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the colors are bad and I wouldn't want them to remain in the article forever, but I'm not concerned since I assume that once all four events are complete the article will assume a more sane form. Quale (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Since I did that previous colour scheme, I'm coming by to say I don't mind the current one at all. Grey is certainly a better colour to occupy half the table than red. –Uncreative Username 37 (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Preliminary updates
What is the point to put information for the first round which will be changed in 2 days? I thought Wikipedia is not a news website but an encyclopedia. Makes no sense to me. The readers might as well check the temporary results on the Grand Prix 2019 official website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:909:1C72:90DE:8217 (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Because more often than not, the official site is rubbish and impossible to navigate. I don't have a problem with progress scores. It happens with other sport articles all the time. Adpete (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * To give you an idea how bad the official site is: Even if you manage to find the current Grand Prix standings here (at the bottom of another article, not linked to on the main site for the series), it turns out they're actually wrong – they put Grischuk on #1, even though Mamedyarov is leading on the first tie break (he's won one tournament and Grischuk hasn't won any). Joriki (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Prize money?
It is very unusual to put "prize many" on such a serious page like Fide Gran Prix. It is also vulgar and has nothing to do with sports and the game. Or maybe Wikipedia has been bought by Warren Buffet? I propose to delete "Prize money" category. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:6C50:3322:56F1:6B17 (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not at all unusual. Articles on chess tournaments usually specify the prize money, e.g. Chess World Cup 2019, FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament 2019. It's a relevant fact about the tournament, e.g. it influences how attractive the tournament is for professional chess players. As to Wikipedia being bought by Warren Buffet: I don't understand whom or what exactly you mean by "Wikipedia". This article was written by individual editors without any institutional affiliation to the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm pretty sure that Warren Buffet has a better use for his time and money than to seek out the individual editors of articles on chess tournaments and pay them to insert sections on prize money. Joriki (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am reluctantly ok with the prize money being listed under the tournament conditions, so long as it is not too prominent, because other Wikipedia sports articles tend to do the same thing e.g. 2019 Wimbledon Championships; though I suspect very few people care except the players. But I propose we delete the received prize money from the final table. I cannot think of any other Wikipedia sports article which lists that sort of thing, and it is pretty distracting in that table. Adpete (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't care either way; I'm not much interested in the prize money myself. I didn't add it to the table; I just improved the column after someone had added it. But it really isn't as unusual as you're both making it out to be. For instance, the Grand Chess Tour article includes the total prize money won for all Grand Chess Tours since 2015 and has done so since 2016. Now that someone has made the effort of adding it here and apparently found it interesting enough to do so, I'd tend to leave it in. (Unfortunately it was added anonymously, so we can't ask the editor who added it for their arguments for doing so.) Joriki (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * But the main goal of the Grand Chess Tour is the prize money (see its lead sentence, ("a circuit of chess tournaments where players compete for multiple prize pools"), while the main goal for the Grand Prix is qualifying for the World Championship candidates. Adpete (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That statement isn't sourced :-) I wonder how many of the players would agree with the statement that the main goal of the tour is the prize money. In my view, prize money is one relevant aspect among others in all these tournaments. Certainly it has a relatively larger weight if the tournament doesn't qualify for the Candidates than if it does. The Grand Chess Tour has $325,000 ≙ €294,000 total prize money per classical event, $150,000 ≙ €136,000 per rapid & blitz event and $350,000 ≙ €317,000 for the finals. The Grand Prix has €130,000 per event and €280,000 for the overall standings. So the prize money is a bit less in the Grand Prix, but of the same order of magnitude. That fits quite well with how I'd assess the relative weight of the prize money in these tournaments. If the organizers thought that prize money was largely irrelevant in the Grand Prix and it should be only about the chance to qualify for the Candidates, they could have saved a lot of money by handing out a lot less prize money.
 * By the way, "Grand Prix" means "great prize" :-) Joriki (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm against monetizing tags and monetizing Grand Prix Fide. The chess players know exactly how much they win and this information is not relevant for the World Championship qualifiers results. "Grand Prix" may have a lot of meanings, not necessarily related to the money prize but most probably to the benefit of being qualified for the 2020 Candidates Tournament. Your speculative "contributions" and suggestions of the "Grand Prix" meaning only distract from the chess tournament and I find them nonconstructive, if not to say "amateurish".--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:B84A:43DD:C87D:6CA5 (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from such ad hominem remarks.
 * My last comment about the meaning of "Grand Prix" was written with humourous intent (as indicated by the smiley); I agree that this is not relevant. It's also not relevant, however, whether you are against monetizing the Grand Prix. Joriki (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your outstanding sense of humor, yet your comment was left as your opinion on the official Wikipedia page and I left my public comment regarding what I think about it. As to the "relevant" or "not relevant" - we are discussing here a public page which are seen by millions of people, therefore it is very relevant. We are not discussing here my personal whims or business but Grand Prix Fide, which is a part of the the 2020 Candidates Tournament, so everything we say here is public and very relevant. Now, I sincerely think that the prize money is a distraction and I propose to vote here on whether to leave it or not. I'm asking all users to do it and I will accept the opinion of the majority.--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:B84A:43DD:C87D:6CA5 (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, and polling is not a substitute for discussion. Article scope is an editorial choice determined by consensus. If no consensus can be reached "in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." So far, those advocating a removal of the prize money from the standings table have not cited any Wikipedia content guidelines as a basis for that proposal. If you want to remove the prize money from the standings, please engage in a guideline-based discussion oriented towards a consensus in favour of your proposal among editors. Joriki (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a laboratory. Here, is the only person which doesn't wish to come to consensus is you, Joriki. The other users already opined that that the table standings of prize money are more a distraction and it will be more relevant to leave some maim information in the Prize money section (which I agree), yet you insist with these strange and awkward experiments. Can you explain any logic behind personal money prizes in the table standings? I really can't get it. Besides, it even looks like unhealthy attention to personal lives of the players, if not to say invasion their privacy in some sort. This information seems more relevant for tabloids such as Daily Mail. Regarding your reverts on the articles which you call non-trivial issues - can you explain me why you didn't put the symbols in each round for every player? Those symbols could travel from 1 to 10 for all the players. I'm just trying to demonstrate how absurd it is to do that when the only thing which should be done are the plain numbers in each rounds which are facts. Second-guessing is not helpful here.--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:5D62:6C93:9346:EC50 (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You've brought up two quite separate issues in one paragraph. Let's please discuss them separately to keep things straight. I'll respond to each issue in a separate paragraph, and in case you respond I'd kindly ask you to do so separately to each issue.
 * About the prize money: First, one editor who doesn't agree is already not a consensus. Second, there are at least two editors who are not of your opinion, I and the person who added the prize money column to the table. Third, you again didn't cite any Wikipedia content guidelines which the inclusion of the prize money goes against. The content guideline you cited has nothing to with the present issue; if you disagree, please quote in detail which part of it does. I'm afraid we won't make any progress if you stay at the level of loaded terms like "strange and awkward experiments" without backing them up by detailed arguments.
 * About the ⩾ symbols in the results: You ask why I "didn't put the symbols in each round for every player". It's not about what I did; other editors also followed this practice. But to answer your question: As explained in the text above the table at the time, the ⩾ symbols were added to all entries for players who had not yet been eliminated and thus still had the opportunity to gain further points in the ongoing tournament. Unfortunately I don't understand where you see an inconsistency there; if you continue to do so, I'd kindly ask you to spell it out in more detail. Joriki (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious that prize money is relevant to an encyclopedia article on a professional tournament and the treatment in the Prize money section as it appears now seems appropriate. It should be removed from the standings table. I'm not aware of anyone who is on the edge of their seat breathlessly waiting to see who earns the most Grand Prix prize money. If the chess press shows interest in reporting total winnings then the article could mention the top earner or top three earners, but that can be added to the article if needed when the series is complete. Quale (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Quale and by erasing prize money info, I meant only the standings table which was recently added.--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:3070:6F97:2F21:6B6C (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

As a wildcard participant, Boris Gelfand is ineligible for Grand Prix points
And what about Wang Hao and Andreikin? It seems like a lot of mess because we have 3 new participants who are playing in Jerusalem for the first time. It doesn't make any sense for me that Gelfand will not get any points while Wang Hao and Andreikin will. What if someone of those three will start winning all the way through? Could any one here clarify and update the information for these participants with reliable sources?--71.238.35.13 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Andreikin got GP points and is missing in the table showing the GP standings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulvind (talk • contribs) 17:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)