Talk:Fischer–Spassky (1992 match)

Unofficial world championship
I hesitate to call this an unofficial world championship. It isn't listed as such in the World Chess Championship article. In fact, I don't think it is even mentioned. I think it would be better to say that it was "billed as a world championship" or that it was an unofficial rematch of the 1972 match. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Fischer's TPR
Should be possible to calculate it since Spassky's rating is known, and it would be something valuable to add to the article. Anyone have a reliable source for this? Banedon (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not the same thing, but GM Larry Kaufman estimated the standard of this match as Fischer 2720, Spassky 2560 (ratings by 2023 standards). He quotes Susan Polgar as estimating that Fischer in 1993 (when they were playing a lot of Fischerandom) was 2650–2700 strength. Double sharp (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The TPR is in Fischer–Spassky (1992 match), but not really cited adequately. Quale (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath section
I like the original better than the current one. It gives more context. Sure the rival PCA and FIDE world championships might not be directly related to this match, but all three are related by the fact that they're all world championships. Without that context the match seems like it's just a one-off incident, which it perhaps is, but even then the section should say so: something to the tune of "the rest of the chess world largely ignored the match, world championship cycles continued to be organized, Fischer was not consulted in spite of having won this match". I'd also prefer the section to be at the bottom of the article, since the aftermath happens after the match is complete. Banedon (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Adepte's revisions improved the section. Without a source directly supporting that material in connection with the 1992 match, it deserved to be removed.  Quale (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree "Aftermath" sec is better in orig loc after Games sec. (Articles s/b enjoyable to read, after Games sec is consistent w/ storytelling, the opposite is anti-climatic & interest-deflating. The TOC informs of Aftermath sec existence & provides clickable access, so, it isn't obscured or lost in orig loc.) --IHTS (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The location of the Aftermath section isn't too important to me, but I think I have the opposite opinion of that. I fully agree that articles should be enjoyable to read, but I don't believe most readers will find the games sections to be as enjoyable as we might.  I suspect that most readers won't go through all the game scores, and burying Aftermath under 30 dry sections of game scores really is a lot of vertical space especially on mobile devices.  It might be different if there was actually some real prose in the games sections, but I don't think think most readers will find text such as "September 5. After 23...Rc8 Spassky was slightly better" (the only text in the Game 3 section) to be breathtakingly exciting.  In my view the game scores as they stand now are better treated as an appendix.  Seirawan probably provides material that could be used for expansion, but I haven't read No Regrets recently.  Quale (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if a reader doesn't play or read thru the games, I think having "Aftermath" ahead of games is still deflating, like reading last chapter of a mystery novel first. p.s. Spicing up game texts is doable in time, not a little work though. --IHTS (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * World Chess Championship 2016 has "Aftermath" sec after the games. (Is there an important diff?) --IHTS (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, the WC 2016 article actual has prose that describes the action in the games. You can learn something interesting about the individual games in the 2016 match by reading English language text without having to play through the game scores.  This article, not so much.  But also I find the anticlimax argument to be strange.  Wikipedia style requires the article to be summarized in the lead, so every article that follows a timeline is going to be spoiled in the first few paragraphs.  Surely the most interesting thing about a match (especially to a reader who knows nothing about it) is the winner, and that's in the first and only sentence of the second paragraph of the entire article.  But I strongly believe that the editors who do the work get to make the decisions, and I haven't done any work on this article at all.  You should do what you think is right and I will leave it alone.  I'm not going to change the section ordering unless someone does something really crazy, like put Aftermath after References.  Quale (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * since it's his edits we're discussing. I feel that this should follow the WC2016 article even though the sections on the games are barren, but that just means those sections should be expanded. The same general layout for the article should stay in place. I would rather keep the rest of the text in the original Aftermath section but if consensus is against it that's fine. IHTS, do you have an opinion on that? Banedon (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping because I had missed this discussion! My opinion is that game scores shouldn't be in Wikipedia articles at all. They should be in Wikisource, which is the correct place for source material. (My objection would be much milder if Wikipedia had the facility to play through games interactively, as many chess sites do). But failing that, I think most game scores should be in an appendix away from the text, because they interrupt the flow of the article. FWIW, I think the same should happen to World Chess Championship 2016. But I think it's more clear cut here, where there's not too much text so it may as well all be at the front. Adpete (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)