Talk:Immortal Game

10. g4?
Why is g4 awarded a "?"? If it is a bad move, shouldn't there be some commentary on it? 2.24.117.101 (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That probably comes from Robert Hubner's notorious annotation of the game where he strongly criticized BOTH players for their moves pretty much all the way through. I agree it deserves some explanation.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

In Pop Culture
Most of the entries in the "In Media" section, which you have excised, either referred to blue-linked works, or works by blue-linked authors. It is reasonable to assume that there will be readers for whom the cross-references to those works and authors would be useful. If you don't think that this section passes enough of the tests in WP:POPCULTURE, how might we revise it to conform better to Wikipedia standards, without excising it altogether? Bruce leverett (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ideally, a 'in popular culture' section (under whichever title) should be more than simply appearances of the subject in a work. A good example of what this might look like is this sentence from Eternal_Father,_Strong_to_Save:


 * The information is both more than just a mention "x appears in y" (compare with this), and it is reliably sourced to secondary source commentary. Also, the actual instance where it appears is a blue link (some of the "red links" I removed indeed has someone such as the author linked, but that means that the specific instance is probably not notable and merely an "interesting" mention...). Another good example (although I believe the section could be rewritten in prose instead of list format) is Xkcd. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)  RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  21:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Req: Re-Addition of IslandOfGames.com Link
Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I had carefully added a link to an article on the Immortal Game (http://islandofgames.com/en/chess-matches/anderssens-immortal.html), which has been deleted. I would humbly contend that the removal was performed in haste, as this article is - on closer scrutiny - in fact superior to many existing links for the following reasons:

1) Full References: The above page provides complete academic references to quotations about the match from well-known chess books and articles by grandmasters and experts like Keene, Steinitz and Tartakower. This cannot be said of most other provided links.

2) Historical Author Annotations: The deleted link clearly distinguishes annotations by historical authorities like Keene, Steinitz and Tartakower, and cites exact page numbers in the original source material where the annotations were taken from. This is of immense value to students of chess, and sets the deleted link apart from others.

3) Mobile-Friendly: The page is also mobile-friendly, and looks better on a mobile as compared to some other links.

It is for these reasons that I believe that the link is a worthy addition to the group of pages in the 'External Links' section.

If other editors agree with these points, I would respectfully request that yesterday's deletion to the link (http://islandofgames.com/en/chess-matches/anderssens-immortal.html) be kindly undone.

Thanks and Regards!

Washington Prime


 * I admit that I did not look carefully at the website, but only glanced and thought, "click bait for some game site". The article looks plausible, but I wonder if we could get a second opinion from other editors.  Bruce leverett (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

General improvements: thinking out loud

 * 1) Article can be improved with tighter citation of exemplar sources: Kieseritzky himself, Kasparov, Hooper/Whyld, and also Winter, who actually goes into the history of various versions. We already have all the "machinery" to improve a bit, the article really just needs a bit of reorganizing.
 * 2) The article's subject is reported differently in different sources. We can point to different moves in different sources, while at the same time leading with Kieseritzky's score (his account of things is the exemplar, it's published, PD and is contemporaneous with the event.)  Two of the more reputable sources agree entirely (Kasparov, Hooper/Whyld).  We can also point out some specific sources with (some of the) different moves (a book by Euwe, among others).
 * 3) Separating the ending continuation from the game proper, as a subsection or similar. REALLY call the reader's attention to this apparent fact (per the sources).  This means using qualifying language in lead about what actually took place.  Keep continuation in article (obviously), just stress (more than already) that best authority (the above) indicates that it wasn't played.  Note that "the" continuation is commonly reported in modern books as part of game, but all three of the above agree that 20. Ke2 was the actual conclusion.
 * 4) Getting referencing consistent. I think the notes-references setup is a bit hodge-podge (and I just added two small placeholder cites for the moment), and can be streamlined.  I think this is fine per WP:CITEVAR (what I see as inconsistent), conversely others might disagree, citing same.  Any pushback, please let me know here.
 * 5) Cutting unsourced/editorial game commentary. I have some books which just state the moves with very superficial commentary (which may be usable in one or two spots).  The big two with analysis at hand appear to be Kasparov and Euwe.

Basically I plan on expanding a bit and reorganizing per the above over the next few days.MinnesotanUser (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)