Talk:List of chess games

No Mikhail Tal?
It's surprising to find no Mikhail Tal's game here. Didn't play some of the most exciting chess ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikulkarni (talk • contribs) 05:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad link
I don't know if anyone's noticed yet, but the hyperlink from "Bowdler-Conway, London 1788" seems to be completely off-subject. It leads to a page about Bowdler and doesn't seem to have anything to do with chess. Just thought I would point it out. Daniel Montin 17:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the description of that entry is bogus too. It is the first of two games that show are the "first example of a double bishop sacrifice." ~alan

I've double-checked it. It's okay. The link leads to http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1282695 --a beautiful casual game between D. Bowdler and Henry Seymour Conway in 1788. Bishop's Opening Boi variation (ECO:C23) and Bowdler checkmates Conway on the 23rd move. FadulJoseA (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Bowdler (White) did, indeed, a double rook sacrifice to render his opponent's queen useless. Then he used his two bishops to chase Conway's (Black's) king.FadulJoseA (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Levitsky – Marshall
Who thinks 1912: Levitsky – Marshall, Breslau, is one of the greatest queen sacrifices ever played?? It's not really a queen sacrife so much as a queen swap since mate is avoided by the Queen exchange. Rooks can then be exchanged and since aleady up a knight this is a decisive advantage, but the Queen is not sacrificed for mate or even for a material advatage. The material advantage already existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathcliff (talk • contribs) 12:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While that is true, moving a queen from being attacked just once by a rook to three times by two pawns and a queen is alone impressive.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Gold shower
I believe the rumor is what makes the game notable, and what makes it worth having an article on. There are reliable sources depicting whether it is true or not.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? (That there are reliable sources affirming the rumor, or there are reliable sources affirming the fact? And if the latter, they why report it in an encycolpedic entry as a "rumor"? And if the former, then we have reliable sources documenting a "rumor" – which is just great, imagine that!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "A rumor is what makes the game notable."?! What in your view constitutes notability? (The definitions on WP seem vague, so, I guess, anything goes, and ... no one is wrong. So, let's hear it!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * WP says notability is not = "fame" nor = "popularity". WP:N. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This interesting fact, not its popularity, is what makes it notable. People who don't play chess may never hear of it.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are saying, there are reliable sources which document the fact of the rumor? And that is what constitutes notability in this case?  Or? (Trying to clarify what your view is.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that this game is known for this rumor (the rumor isn't said to be true) adds to its notability in the coverage it received mentioning the rumor. It doesn't constitute all of the notability, but it is important.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So now you are clarifying that it is a rumor that the reliable sources support, and nothing more. (Is it the job of an encyclopedia to report known rumors? And justify doing so on the basis the known rumors lend notability?  On what basis then is notability? This is circular, and also nuts!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources confirming a rumor, lend notability to the subject on which the rumor applies, because of the rumor." Do you realize what kind of rabbit-hole you're asking to go down?! Ihardlythinkso (talk)
 * stop giving me edit conflicts; do it all in one edit No, reliable sources support the existance and importance of the rumor, not its factuality. People would want to read about a game that had this interesting event (in fact, I submitted a DYK on it), so it counts toward notability. I wrote about it as a "legend" when writing the article (read it) on this game, with additional analysis. The rumor itself is notable, in fact.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is what I meant. (You are saying the RS supports the fact that a rumor exists.) But now you are speaking of an "interesting event". (What are you referring to? Interesting event = the rumor? Or what?) CONFUSING! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The rumor is of the event. The event's most interesting aspect was supposedly what started the rumor.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources confirming that a rumor exists, lend notability to the subject on which the rumor applies, because of the rumor." Is that the argument you like to see accepted? (Just asking.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they lend notability to both the subject and the rumor itself.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you at all. What specifically are you referring to by word "event"? (The game? The rumor about gold coins? What?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The game.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep shifting words around unnecessarily, I was as already using "the subject" = "the subject of the article" = "the game". So on that basis, in summary you like the follwing argument to be accepted: "Reliable sources confirming that a rumor exists, lend notability to the subject on which the rumor applies, because of the rumor." - is that correct?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've re-formatted your comment above to reset the indents That's part of it. The other part is that the subject itself is also notable, but the rumor extends the subject's notability.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you are back-peddling. Here's what you said at the top of this section: "I believe the rumor is what makes the game notable, and what makes it worth having an article on."
 * Your argument is the same as "famous for being famous" (or in this case, "notable for being rumored"). I DO NOT think Wikipedia supports such basis for notability. I think WP wants to look for real notability, not ghosts. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC) 06:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please find for me ONE other article on Wikipedia, which has as its basis for notability: documented rumor. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically any article that covers a subject with substantial rumor, like the one on the Turk.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's interesting word-play. Because the Turk ended up to be disproven, you equate the Turk as "rumor". But the words are different. The Turk article is based on misapprehension, not "rumor".  It was a hoax, misunderstood at the time, a mystery, a subject of conjecture. Perhaps there were rumors told about the Turk during its time, but that is different. If rumor(s) were told, they are not the basis for the Turk article. The "gold coins" story, on the other hand, is all about rumor. Not a misapprehension or a hoax.  Not a "War of the Worlds" where misapprehension emanated things to happen. The gold coins story is simple rumor.  End of story. Can you find even ONE article in Wikipedia with its notability vested in simple rumor?!  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't even a simple rumor, first off. It isn't one that has been made up by fan sites, for instance. There are, for instance, rumors included on the article on the game's origination (some say it originated in India). Notice that I did not say it was all, but part, of the Levitsky-Marshall game's notability.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is quite clear what you said in the first sentence of this section, and I refuse to go 'round the horn with you as you as you attempt to 'doctor' it to mean something other that what you clearly said and meant. The thing about "spectators showering the board with gold coins" has clearly been discussed by you & me as the documented "rumor", and that is what I meant by "simple rumor" versus a hoax like the Turk or War of the Worlds. Now you are trying to take the phrase "simple rumor" and use it for something else we have not discussed.  Sorry, I'm not partaking in that kind of detour in discussion. I really find it hard communicating with you, becasue everthing I say is manipulated and reflected back as in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  If you wanna provide a Footnote to the "spectators showered the wooden chessboard with gold coins after the game" thing - which we agreed is a documented rumor and nothing more (pretty abusrd too, I think) - go ahead, make a Footnote.  But to base the existence of the article on notability vested in nothing more than docoumented rumor, is unencyclopedic, and doesn't stand scrutiny.  I have made my message plain to you, and you keep coming back with absurd twists on words and phrases to confuse clear messages, which I find at best illogical, at worst manipulative.  We end this discussion now between you & me, I disagree with your thrust on the article and I've made myself plain more than once.  Please go talk to your mentors; discussion with you has reached for me the point of insufferability. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion
This article has a big problem: it doesn't explain what makes a game worthy of inclusion here. Sources should be added, else the article should be AfDed. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was probably the choice of an editor or editors as to what games are included. It could follow a source such as The World's Greatest Chess Games, by Burgess, Nunn, and Emms, or something similar to that. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes a game notable is whether it's covered in multiple sources. Agree that more sources should be added, or a link in some cases (i.e. Immortal game), or games removed. AFD applies to the whole article not individual games and so would not be appropriate in this situation. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree about multiple sources needed. Is it ok to have external links in the middle of the text?OTAVIO1981 (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Like Sun Creator, I don't see any real justification for losing the article - it is generally a fine set of games, worthy of inclusion. However, we do need to be vigilant in including only those games that can be backed up by reliable sources. I'd be happy with sources such as Bubba suggests, or even a passing comment by a recognized author that he/she considers the game "one of the greatest of all time", or "one of the best examples in history of ...". Where we probably have to draw the line is with the inclusion of games that cannot be sourced in this way, or where sources show only a lesser form of praise, like "this was a great game", or similar. Of course the article title is not great, as it more or less suggests that any game may be appropriate for inclusion. The introduction is also not very illuminating, as 'notable' is a subjective term. I can certainly see how an article revamp would be of benefit, but it probably won't happen overnight. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Notable" means it could support its own article acc. to WP:GNG, so that isn't too subjective. (Right? Or, how do you mean?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Bumping this before starting cleanup. As the point raised above, we can't include every chess game ever played, and basing importance on editor judgment doesn't work per WP:NOR. Given the common selection criteria, the entries should probably be considered individually notable, which means some minimum level of sourcing that would be sufficient to justify the game having its own article (with exception if the sources are many but the content is little). Since more than a year has gone by without anybody adding these sources, it seems safe to assume that it's not happening soon. Objections to removing the external links and unsourced games without their own articles? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is an example of old-school wikipedia, back when it was a free for all, people did what they liked and it was expected to all come out in the wash in the end. The recent IP edits are very much in that spirit. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Poole versus HAL 9000
We have an article on this (admittedly fictional) chess game, Poole versus HAL 9000. Any reason it's not listed in this article? Banedon (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since there's no objection I'm adding this. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)