Talk:Game of the Century (chess)

Notation
it would be terrific if chess enthusiasts here could add in comments into the move notation. but please don't add copyrighted comments. Kingturtle 17:56 26 May 2003 (UTC)

I debated over this before I saved it. I chose refers to because the term "The Game of The Century" is subjective. There was no vote. There was no play-off. There was no objective way to decide which game was the "The Game of The Century". It wasn't billed with that name before the game. So we can't say it is or was....the name is completely subjective. And arguments can be made that other games were the "The Game of The Century". That is why I made the decision. I did not make a rash decision. I thought about it closely. Kingturtle 20:50 26 May 2003 (UTC)
 * The Game of The Century was a chess game played between chessmaster Donald Byrne and 13-year old Bobby Fischer....or
 * The Game of The Century refers to a chess game played between chessmaster Donald Byrne and 13-year old Bobby Fischer


 * As a point of interest, I think it was Hans Kmoch who first called this game the "Game of the Century", very shortly after it was played. I don't have anything to hand that will verify that just now, but it might be worth Googling (I'm very short of time myself just at the minute). --Camembert

I'm going to get rid of the PGN formatting - there's a link at the bottom of the page to the pgn version for anybody who wants it, but I think it's better for humans to read more natural looking text. --Camembert

Would it be possible to add graphics of actual positions partway through the game, at appropriate places? I think it would greatly improve the article. I don't have the right software to produce relevant graphics, but I expect other people do. -- Cabalamat 17:37, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

An anon added an external link to http://home.att.net/~bobbyfischer/game_of_the_century_chess.htm for playing through the game in animated format. I like the feature but the accompanying article there is a verbatim copy of this one without attribution. I left a comment on that site, calling attention to the terms of the FDL. If Wikipedia is created there, the link here could be restored. As for the PGN link, I just got a 404 when I tried it. Is that just me or is the link broken? JamesMLane 18:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not just you. The file that link points to appears to not exist. Not sure what's happened there, but I'll upload a replacement. --Camembert

The external link now credits the Wikipedia and mentions the GFDL (I didn't realise this before my recent reversion, which is why I've restored it). I'm still not sure it's a very useful link for us to have myself, since it adds so little to the article, and you can play through the game at so many other websites (chessgames.com for one), but if people think it's useful, I'm not going to remove it. --Camembert


 * This anonymous user had been littering a lot of Chess pages with links to his stuff; in addition, his pages go out of their way to rejct Mozilla and Firefox. I think these links should be shot on sight.  I've listed him on the Vandalism in progress page.


 * The site is just a hobbyist site, right, not commercial (except that it carries Google ads along the top)? It seems to me to have a fair amount decent material.  I admit I'm biased toward it because it now credits Wikipedia for our Game of the Century article.  The link here lets people go right to the animated game, which I think makes the article more useful to the reader.  JamesMLane 22:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You have some legitimate points. The reason I reverted what 69.133.93.199 wrote is because his only contribution to Wiki is adding links to his home page to dozens of chess and music pages.  When people remove the links, he puts them back in; I've had to revert his changes twice just today.  I was reverting [everything] he added on dozens of chess pages; he put some stuff back in so a team of us had to revert yet again.  Strange he's adding all these links around the time the Google dance is scheduled to happen.  Since you approve his links here, we'll keep them on this page.  Samboy 02:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree with you that he should raise issues on the Talk pages instead of just constantly reverting.  I would be tempted to restore his link (well, one of the three) on the Bobby Fischer article, just on the site's merits, but I'm refraining from doing so because of his MO. JamesMLane 02:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * See User:Hadal's comment on the vandalism page. I've also noticed that he replaces links occasionally, no just adding it. --1pezguy 04:23, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

mistake in the moves?
So I played through this game with someone, playing the moves just as they are listed here, and I think there might be a mistake. after 15. ... Nxc3!, Black's knight is unprotected, and I find no reason why White won't respond with 16. Qxc3. I think Blacks knight should be protected by the bishop on g7, however this is blocked by the white pawn on d4. Am I missing something?


 * After 16. Qxc3 Rfe8, White can't hold the pinned bishop (17. Qa3 Qc7) and will simply be down a pawn with no compensation. Byrne played 16. Bc5 to get his bishop out of danger with a tempo, because of course Fischer would be forced to deal with the attack on his queen... except that he wasn't.  :) JamesMLane 04:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the well-known game played between Kasparov and Topalov in 1999 was played at Wijk an Zee, not Linares. --Fermatprime 14:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, if white responded Kh2 instead of Kf1 at move 36, how would black checkmate him?


 * Perhaps by moving the knight, followed by Rxg2+ etc. 84.70.221.48 23:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

36. Nd2 37.Kh1 Ra1+ 38.Kh2 Nf1+ 39. Kh1 Ng3+ 40.Kh2 Bf2 41.Qf8+ Kxf8 42. Nd7+ Ke7 43. Nc5 Rh1# xD

Following Black's Na4 sacrifice, I'm struggling seeing the following; "...after 17. gxf3 Bf8 produces a deadly pin" - I don't see it. Surely White counters with Be2? Black seems one piece away from forcing that pin? Can somepone point it out for me? :) -- Alexpritchard (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The bishop is pinned to the queen. Black will emerge from this with an extra pawn, the better pawn structure, a lead in development, and the initiative, since White's king is out in the middle like in the game.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Game of the Century - American Sports
I find it funny that this is referring to a chess match, because if you were to ask the typical American sports fan, the "Game of the Century" is the 1971 Thanksgiving Day matchup between #1 Nebraska and #2 Oklahoma, which is often thought of as the greatest college football game ever played.


 * There are many games labelled as "Game of the Century". I'm American, and never heard of the 1971 football game, but I certainly heard of the chess game.  Google is sometimes helpful in pointing out popularity; it points first of all to a 1916 football, followed by this chess game, followed by many other things.  Perhaps it might be best make "Game of the Century" a disambiguation page, and rename the current page as "Game of the Century (chess)".  Dwheeler 12:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sure each sport has a "game of the century". I've heard the 8th game of the 1972 Canada-Russia hockey series referred to this way. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Poetry
"Fischer demonstrates ... poetry": While this is an impressive game, our description fails to back this statement up. Does "poetry" have a special meaning in chess, or is this at least a famous quote? If not, it should be deleted as unencyclopedic. Common Man 06:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks almost NPOV if it isn't something quoted :) Piepants 00:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Piepants

Copyvio
I followed the link at the bottom of the page and found an almost-verbatim copy of this article on Fisher's website - it looks like this is a copyright violation. I've tagged it as such. 204.40.1.129 14:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My bad...my bad. Sorry. Not a copyvio after all. 204.40.1.129 14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Unclear description
The article states : "12. Qa3 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Nxe4! Fischer again offers material in order to open the e-file and get at White's uncastled king." Could the author please make clear what material is Fischer offering precisely, which "Byrne wisely declines" ?
 * It's explained in the note that says "Byrne wisely declines" the offer. Byrne could have captured Fischer's rook by playing 15. Bxf8.  Byrne would have emerged with a material advantage but a bad position. JamesMLane t c 11:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

the line 18.Qxc3 Qxc5
Black can't take white's bishop after Qxc3 because 19.Bxf7+! wins the queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 19. Bxf7 is impossible because of the black bishop on e6, moved there on 17... Be6. Bubba73 (talk), 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Move 14
I ran the analysis on Houdini, and Houdini believes that the position is 2 pawns down for white, and white should not have taken that pawn on move 14, as the engine opted out for Be3 instead. Perhaps it is worth mentioning in the wikipedia page? 12.72.157.131 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Dark_wizzie
 * Unfortunately, it can't be used on Wikipedia because it would be considered "Original Research". Everything on Wikipedia must be from published sources. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance tags
I've been brought here following a couple of maintenance tags that I placed being removed, as well as a note on my talk page. I wish to expand on my concerns and explain why I tagged the page as I did.

On the part about needing more citations: there are two places that definitely needing more citations, that being the first paragraph of the "Background" section and the full "The Game" section, as I explain below. I have marked the former with a cn tag.

"The Game" section drew my WP:NPOV tag, and also needs citations. This section contains a lot of editorializing and original research. Some examples include:

et al, et al. The entire section suffers from lack of citations and unfounded claims of brilliance. The entire section should be rewritten with only sourced claims remaining. Nothing written here should be unsourced analysis as it largely is now; the only descriptions of moves should be obvious descriptions of the notation (i.e. Fischer castles) or analysis that can be sourced.

Anyways, that is my gripe with this article. Dea db  eef  01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Most of this can probably be sourced.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of the annotations are probably taken (rephrased) from sources rather than just made up by the editors who wrote that part of the article, they just aren't cited inline. I also agree that this is a legitimate concern, and we should fix it. Quale (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The ones above do not come from The World's Best Chess Games by Burgess. But they do sound like they are from some source.  The game is covered in several books.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Annotations were added 12 July 2003, but they have probably been modified since then. User:Dwheeler is still active - you could ask him where they came from. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree it looks like the annotations were drawn from sources and just not cited, and that citations s/b added now that annotation claims in general have been "challenged". But I disagree the article annotations need to be limited to "obvious descriptions of the notation (i.e. Fischer castles) or analysis that can be sourced." Some of the annotations are simple editorial observations which I'm sure are permitted and even desirable, for example:


 * Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The game is also annotated in Kasparov on Fischer (My Great Predecessors, part 4). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great. (For me, I have only the Alexander book, and the Wade book, so am limited as far as adding further cites, FYI.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Move 15
I ran an analysis of the game on chess.com, and it said that 15. Nxc3 is a brilliant move, but the wiki page says it's a great move. The interesting thing is, that if you go to chess.com page of The Game of the Century, and run an analysis there, it says that 15. Nxc3 is a great move, just like the wiki (and also that 32. b5 and 33. h5 are great moves, but my analysis that I ran right now doesn't, and categorizes them as just excellent and best moves respectively). Should the annotation change? Or are there some rules on the wiki that I am not aware of about annotations? ElectroMaster88 (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Chess.com's "brilliant" designation is not in line with what we would normally give !! here (it gives very run of the mill sacrifices the "brilliant" label). Annotations should be attributed to published reliable sources. Also see WP:DAW.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The present Wikipedia article does not use the expression "great move", but gives 15...Nxc3 an exclamation point. I guess you are looking at some glossary where it says that "!" means "great move".  But I don't know what glossary that is, and I have seen different definitions in different glossaries.  So let's quit using glossaries and just describe what words and punctuation marks are being used here and there.
 * You are saying that if you look at the game in chess.com two times, one by just moving the pieces yourself and one by going to the chess.com article about the game, you get two different results: the first way you get two or more exclamation points, the second way you get just one.  Not surprising.  And this is one of many reasons why we do not get our analysis from chess.com, or cite chess.com analysis in articles.  There are other reasons (for example, chess.com analysis doesn't fit our criteria for a reliable source, as User:Jasper Deng has pointed out above).
 * In this Wikipedia article, nearly every comment on a move has a footnote, in which we cite whatever article or book the comment was based on. That is standard practice in Wikipedia nowadays.  We don't expect readers to believe our own comments, since we are anonymous and many of us editors are not even chess players; instead we get our comments from well-known, reputable, easily accessible sources.
 * With exclamation points, question marks, and other punctuation, it's awkward and clumsy, to the point of being ridiculous, to give a footnote citing a source. So if you look through Wikipedia articles with chess game scores, you will often see no exclamation points or question marks at all, or you will see them only in places where the punctuation mark to use is obvious from the comments, perhaps even obvious to the reader.  Older articles, possibly including this one, sometimes include punctuation marks that aren't obvious; but that's not considered good practice any more.
 * I might add that, if you read a lot of chess books and articles, you will find that when two people (or two computers) annotate the same game, they often disagree about which moves are good and which moves are bad, let alone about how many exclamation points to use or how many question marks. You can't take all the punctuation marks, or even all the comments, too seriously.  Usually if you want to really understand a game, you have to do the analyzing yourself. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd also point out that the moves after 25...Nxd1 are superfluous since Black was easily winning. Most published versions of the game give little or no comment to these moves, let alone bother with assigning question marks or exclamation points. It's quite possible some publications give 15...Nxc3 two exclams, but you'll probably find the bulk of RS leave it at one. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)