Talk:List of chess software

Rename to List of chess software
Suggest this rename as was discussed in AFD. SunCreator (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Case to be List of computer chess software, and since all software is on computers the word computer can be dropped. So: List of chess software. SunCreator (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest splitting the first list, "Engines and/or Graphical User Interface", into three lists: "Chess Engines"; "Chess Graphical User Interfaces"; and "Chess Graphical User Interfaces with Engines". --SMStallings48 (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Elo Ratings?
This list seems as good a place as any to include Elo Ratings for each software that has achieved one.
 * No, changes every now and then. -Koppapa (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT
I am seeing a lot of reverts on the article page with zero discussion here on the talk page. Please read and obey WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT before someone comes along and starts handing out blocks for edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"List of online chess playing programs"
This is the reverted version of the page for reference:

My concerns are as follows:
 * The header includes wikilinks. This is contrary to the manual of style, per WP:LINKSTYLE and WP:SEAOFBLUE.
 * It is not clear what an "online chess playing program" actually is. The header probably needs to be reworded, and there should be a sentence underneath the header explaining exactly what is being listed here. (I think it's web sites where you can play against an engine?)
 * I am not convinced that a list of web sites where you can play chess against an engine is WP:NOTABLE. The sources given are all primary, making this look like a link directory. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, setting up a web interface to an existing chess engine is so easy to do that listing such sites is pretty much putting out the welcome mat to non-notable linkspam. I can see how, in theory, some such links could be notable; for example, a web interface to something like Deep Blue, or a "play against God" site where you go up against an endgame tablebase that is far too large for any home computer to store -- something like that might be notable enough to include here. Or perhaps not. List of Internet chess servers is a fine list and there shouldn't be any duplication between it and this list. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you. In general, it needs formatting/style cleanup. I'm okay with having a list, but I think any of the redlink entries should be removed, as should "Sakk", which links to essentially nothing. Sergecross73   msg me  15:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi fellows, I created the list not to contravene Wikipedia rules or to start any type of edit-wars,  I did it to allow people to find online chess software to play against as quickly and easily as possible.  I am not certain why an online chess playing program would have to be overly-notable!  The Wikipedia should show some flexibility here.  As a chess player, my main concern is the quality of the GUI and the game play, etc.  I hope we can work together constructively to make the list work and keep it here, as per the discussion of the article afd Thanks. IQ125 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why can't they "find online chess software to play against as quickly and easily as possible" at our List of Internet chess servers page? When the protection (put there because certain individuals here -- you know who you are -- decided to edit war over this) expires, I doubt that anyone would object to me adding a link to List of Internet chess servers in the see also section. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh Great, User talk:Guy Macon the Wikipedia Troll has shown up to spam and war! IQ125 (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Based on your interactions with me and now it seems like you may not understand the implications of that fact. All arguments and discussion should be about the article and its content, not other editors. It sounds like your argument is, more or less, that you just don't like the ways Wikipedia handles things like lists and notability. That's fine, and you're welcome to argue your position, but respect that there have been countless discussions that have led to the present rules and norms, so to just dismiss them and call people trolls, etc. isn't usually very productive. Nobody is trolling you. Nobody has a problem with you personally. The problem is with certain content you've added. Odds are good you've added good content, too, but there are problems here. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 21:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, here comes troll number two IQ125 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:IAD and WP:DENY, I plan on not responding to further abusive comments by IQ125, and I advise others here to do likewise. I have placed a warning on his talk page, and I note that he has already been blocked once for this sort of behavior. If the abusive editing of the article resumes I will deal with it in the usual way. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria
As is usual with lists on Wikipedia (See WP:INDISCRIMINATE) I am removing every entry that doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Anyone who wishes to add a program should write up a Wikipedia page for that program, and only then attempt to add it to this list. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)