Talk:Qiyu Zhou

Potential for bias in user edits
While it doesn't appear to have affected the neutral tone of the article, though it could well be a problem in the future, I should comment here that one of the users adding material appears to be the player's father User:JiehanZhou. In fact, looking at the history, the article was created and almost entirely written by this user along with an unregistered user. Would someone more experienced with the policies in Wikipedia please comment on how to proceed. Jkmaskell (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I' not experienced with the policies in Wikipedia, but I think this is a case of WP:COI, there is a Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Sophia91 (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is also an issue with this article. She is the world's #83 girl player. Good for her, but not really notable. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Using wrong accusation and groundless rumours from the banned Finnish Forum are against the rule of WIKI. Wiki can only use official and reliable resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonJunior (talk • contribs) 14:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

"Qiyu Zhou has performed well in tournaments in Hungary and Serbia. In fact the results there are lot better than her achievements elsewhere. " The observation was first made in finnish chess forum. A respected finnish FIDE master has made some detailed commentary about the issue with his owm name in print. However, if any of this is mentioned in a wikipedia article, it gets quickly removed. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:26F2:AE00:7130:8A33:BAD8:ED58 (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

In response : The discussion is defamatory and groundless which is very biased. Defamatory and libelous comments can't be published in anyone's wiki. We have to keep the neutral tone of voice, especially with a minor who is under 18 years old. Also our tone of voice has to be very neutral, and avoiding using personal, biased comment like "In fact the results there are lot better than her achievements elsewhere." The souces provided by the Finnish ID are full of personal attacks, wrong accusation, and insults against a minor, which should be justified by the court of Finland and FIDE,  before it is allowed to be cited as sources. GordonJunior (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The accusations are not biased or groundless. The late Finnish Fidemaster made such a convincing case with his research on her games in Hungary/Serbia that I don't know any Finnish chess player who doubted the veracity of it. Here she is generally considered a [potentially libel although true]. 37.33.170.15 (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

We have to keep the neutral tone of voice (and neutral point of view) Thaipale (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources for a living people, especially a minor

"It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.

It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. You should always try to find the best possible source for the information you have. For information about living people, only the most reliable sources should be used. So for a chess player, results published by FIDE is the reliable source, and only reliable facts are allowed to be published on WIKI, e.g. Qiyu Zhou won the Canadian Women's Championship in Sept. 2016 without losing a game, she became the undefeated World Youth Chess Champion for Under 14- year-old girl in Sept. 2014. "GordonJunior (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you note to the editor, Sophia91

This editor did a great job to trim the original information and remove all the unnecessary details, as well as she keeps a neutral tone of voice based on the facts and reliable publications from FIDE and newspaper. I agree that unreliable sources and personal attacks should be immediately removed and investigated, especially considering the age of Zhou. Justice189 (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Linking to other articles of living persons
The "associated acts" parameter in the Twitch infobox was removed by on their claim that it was advertising, even though it is not. Examples of advertising would be to have an external link in the prose, or to incorporate unnecessary praise into the article for no particular reason (see WP:Identifying blatant advertising). It is not advertising to merely link to other articles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Content in the infobox does still need to be based on reliable sources though. I think adding the appropriate context to the main article body would probably be the best way to start. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's straightforward to source (see here or here), but a similar statement was also removed from the prose, I think by the same editor. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That second article only says that Botez is a "friend and chess streaming colleague" of Zhou, and so I do not think it is particularly useful. The first article says, "The channel also has a regular Friday night guest host, WGM Qiyu Zhou", but does not provide any additional context, such as how long "regular" means (at the time the article was published, it seems like just a few weeks). Finding additional sources and adding that content to the main body would be helpful to determine whether "associated acts" is appropriate in the infobox. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Regular" suffices to say that they have collaborated. It doesn't need to be for any specified amount of time. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Appearing on a person's Twitch stream once or twice is not an "associated act". Obviously the amount of time and extent of the collaboration is relevant. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Regular" also suffices to say that it was more than once or twice. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Her chess.com profile covers a lot more stuff, including mentioning Botez months later, and her DOB that you edited out. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that she started streaming on their channel before starting her own makes it more significant regardless of the length (as she discusses here). Even now that she has her own channel, they still regularly collaborate (as recently as this week). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not helping by adding a link to the store at chessbase.com. That actually would be WP:PROMOTIONAL. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , that link is not promotional. If you have reliable sources for information like her birthday, WP:BEBOLD and add them. For the "associated acts", her chess.com profile only shows a single video with Botez and is not really supporting that. You need to add content to the main body before adding it to the infobox. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Common Name?
Should this be titled 'Nemo Zhou' (per this article)? In this video (from this past January) she says, 'I prefer it when people call me Nemo. Of course, some people do know me as Qiyu, and those are people that can keep calling me Qiyu, but otherwise, everybody should call me Nemo, really appreciate it, thank you.' So, even though the name she uses is not a derivation of her birth name, this would seem to be a similar case to, say, Ben Finegold's Wikipedia page being 'Ben Finegold' (not 'Benjamin Finegold').

Her online handles are mostly 'akaNemsko', but in the 'about' section on her Twitch she's written, 'Hi my name is Nemo and...'. And this video from the St Louis Chess Club is titled, 'Get to know WGM Nemo Zhou with GM Denes Boros.'

Toadmore (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * She's first and foremost a chess player and FIDE and Chessgames and presumably Chessbase all list her under the name "Qiyu Zhou". If this was just an internet figure then I'd be in favor of a change, but whatever she is called in social contexts, this seems like the right title to me. The case of "Ben Finegold" is not really the same because "Ben" is a diminutive form (MOS calls it a "hypocorism") of "Benjamin", whereas "Nemo" is not a hypocorism of "Qiyu"; a better comparison is Levy Rozman (not "GothamChess"). — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

New Article on Controversy involving Nemo
I was wondering if any mention of this issue might noted given this new article about it? Its being discussed elsewhere so I came here to read about Nemo.

https://www.chesstech.org/2021/beyond-the-norm/

Thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.117.19 (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Stuff like that is also discussed in the section "Potential for bias in user edits". Quite a few of the accounts discussing there have been deleted for being her father - or one purpose accounts and duplicates of the same user. I also think it is somewhat weird that nobody even mentions that not only did she gain ridiculous amounts of rating in Kecskemet. But Kecskemet did also not fit into the places where she usually went for tournaments. She went very far out of her way to even go to Kecskemet. And then she got ridiculous rating gains in Kecskemet. Her largest rating gain (somewhere else) in that period was +40-45ish. In Kecskemet she gained +90, +126, +174, +57, +60 (and that's all her results there). Just compare with the ratings of Hou Yifan (Women's World Chess Champion). That's how natural rating progression looks. Her positive rating changes are consistently below +35. She had one +122. But that was one of her first ELO tournaments and at that point she still was 400 points away from her current rating. Or Anna Muzychuk (Women's World Chess Champion). Her highest ever tournament rating gain was +38. At that point she was 200 points away from her current rating. The highest ever tournament rating change of Magnus Carlsen was +32 when he was 600 points away from his current rating (he had a +29 when he was within 100 points of his current rating). Qiyu Zhou supposedly got +90, +126, +174, +57, +60 in single tournaments when she already was within 60 points of her current rating. Even just the probability of that happening in one tournament is abysmally low. 5 times in a row (and nowhere else)... no way this is real. --2A02:810B:C63F:DF78:A00F:9043:BAA8:E5E3 (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is speculation, rumor and original research until such time as there is a substantial body of reliable sources alleging unfair play. I cannot see who writes ChessTech or what their fact-checking, editorial oversight and complaints processes are, which is information I would need to say that it is reliable. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends what you are talking about.
 * That Kecskemet was unusually far away (compared to her normal tournaments) is trivially true (you can just put dots on a map... it is very plain to see).
 * That her rating gains of competing 5 times in Kecskemet are also her 5 highest all-time rating gains is also true.
 * That even her lowest of those 5 rating changes (for a single tournament) in Kecskemet is higher than the *highest* that three world champions achieved in their lifetime is also true (I only checked those three though).
 * Even Magnus (when he was still at her rating) never got rating gains as high as those she had (when she was already close to her maximum rating).
 * That she has subsequently dropped back down in rating is also true (however she kept the title because titles are life-time awards).
 * Just as a side note: The article also mentions Karjakin (who was exposed for fixing a match in his tournament in Sudak 2002). Karjakin had a rating gain of +12.9 in that tournament.
 * All of this is public information: e.g. https://ratings.fide.com/profile/505161/calculations
 * Since ELO is based on probability you can actually do the math on how probable those 5 results were. I think there was a finnish grandmaster that actually did this (and that's the discussion above that was silenced by her father and other single purpose accounts (mostly by misquoting wiki rules and edit wars)).
 * It is speculation to say that the title was bought. It is not speculation that the rating gains leading to the title were abnormally high. If anything just saying "abnormally high" is understating the fact (every single one of those 5 tournaments would already be a wow-moment).
 * In addition to that I am a little bit confused by you stating that you cannot see who writes ChessTech. Kinda seems like you made up your mind without checking any facts. The article, very clearly, states its writer two times.
 * --2A02:810B:C63F:DF78:C49B:C203:31A1:1D78 (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is speculation to say that ratings were "abnormally high". The issue is not that information is non-public, but that you are engaged in original research using public information. For instance, you cannot simply "do the math" on how likely 5 results were, even assuming correctness of FIDE ratings. You need to choose a particular mathematical model to evaluate likelihoods of multiple results: for instance, what is the correlation between results? Many people naively assume independence, but there should be a strong positive correlation (people do well in streaks; if they are playing better, they're more likely to play well in the next game). A subject matter expert should be able to do this reasonably well. Additionally, a 1 in 1,000 chance event happens 1 in 1,000 times. And there are more than 1,000 high profile chess figures. An expert should be able to reasonably determine a bound beyond which the threshold is large enough that we would not be accusing a random high profile figure of "abnormal" performance.What I mean about ChessTech is that I don't know who Stefan Löffler is. Who is his editor? What are his credentials? — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it really? Abnormal just refers to a "normal". That's a fairly weak statement. I would say that it is very obvious that those results are not normal. Abnormal also does not indicate foul play.
 * An extraordinary lucky streak would be one explanation.
 * Maybe they just did a lot of research to find tournaments with overrated players (I don't think this explanation would hold up, but it wouldn't change the fact that the results were abnormally high).
 * The streak argument (i.e. good results thend to appear in groups) doesn't really work here since she went to other tournaments in between (e.g. after the +174 she had a string of 9 tournaments where she lost almost the complete gains from Kecskemet - and then another tournament in Kecskemet where she had one of her lifetime best rating gains again).
 * And even IN those tournaments there was a group of people against whom she had abnormally high gains - and against other groups she had her normal performance. That's not how streaks look.
 * Aside from the tournaments in Kecskemet her graph clearly shows that she was consistently trending towards ~2200 in between (but then another Kecskemet tournament happened that pushed her rating up more).
 * At the very best for her it would be an incredible streak of luck. That also happened in just one place (and there only against a specific group of people) and stopped as soon as she got the title (that was awarded by playing at a certain rating performance a few times (and where did THAT happen? Kecskemet)).
 * Even just the fact that a +174 rating change *exists* is ridiculous. It would already be ridiculous if it happened to a low(ish) rated child (like 2000+) who would go on to be world champion later on (not ridiculous if it happens to a kid with a 1400 rating (because at that level ratings are fairly volatile)). But she was already ~2100 when it started.
 * Just to put it into an image: 2100 is pretty much the best player in a normal city club (the guy who wins against everyone else at the club (not metropolis city, just not a small city, maybe 50k-100k with 2-3 clubs in the city and maybe 100 active/competing players)). At that level ratings aren't super volatile. It's a slow grind to improve (and the same is true for getting worse (barring accidents/sickness)).
 * And as demonstrated above... even people who went on to be world champions didn't have rating changes that high when they still were at the 2100 level (I even allowed for lifetime best when I checked).
 * Also... I don't do OR. I just checked the facts. They just happen to look bad. And look worse the more you look. But that's not my fault...
 * If a 1 in 1000 event happened 5 times in a row I would think it would be pretty noteworthy.
 * Stating THAT it happened is not OR (any explanations on the WHY are a different matter).
 * The article is phrased somewhat carefully. She is mentioned in an article about cheating (which is not nothing), but aside from that the article only states that the tournament management was shady and the results questionable (nothing is said explicitly). I don't know the guy, either. I first saw the article in the link by 76.14.117.19 (and came here because I heard about some unspecific controversy and wanted to check what it was).
 * I do admit that I (now) believe that it was foul play (and after looking into it I would even say that I am sure of it). When I came here I was just a follower of hers on twitch. So if anything I was on her side initially (but mostly just curious). She also talks a lot about her childhood (and the psychological issues arising from it) on stream, so her parents forcing her into that situation (to have the prodigy child (~15 at the time) they really wanted... it fits the descriptions perfectly). But *those* are personal opinions.
 * --2A02:810B:C63F:DF78:C49B:C203:31A1:1D78 (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the main things you are missing with these "facts" is that you are comparing a player with a K-factor of 40 or 20 to players with K-factors of 10. Just last week, IM Abdulla Gadimbayli (2451) had a rating gain of +39.9 at the European Championships, which would correspond to +159.6 with a K-factor of 40. Even Fabiano Caruana (2801) had a gain of +35 at the 2014 Sinquefield Cup, equivalent to +140, and that wasn't even with the advantage of facing higher-rated opposition like Zhou or Gadimbayli did. While this doesn't happen with everyone, if 2800-rated players can have these kinds of exceptional performances, it certainly could and does happen with lower-rated players in the 2000 to 2400 range. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I also wouldn't say Magnus or Hou Yifan have had normal rating trajectories. They became world champions; most players don't. A lot of lower-rated players below 2400 have a bunch of large rating jumps and drops; that's what happens when you have a higher K-factor. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You argue manipulative, not logical. She had K40 for +90, +126, +174 and K20 for +57, +60.
 * The world champions only ended up at K10. There is a difference between players with a K-Factor of 10 and lifetime results of players who ended up at K10. I checked lifetime rating gains for the world champions. I feel I was very clear about that. They started out at 2064 K25, 2168 K25, 2256 K15 - and no similar results in those times. That I allowed for results from their later times to also count does not weaken the argument.
 * Please do a minimum of fact checking before you call what other people say "facts" - and then go on to produce an argument of such poor quality.
 * I also don't get the trajectory argument. I *specifically* picked world champions because you would expect someone with a lot of potential to have had the most explosive growth in the past (when they were still lower rated).
 * If someone at a rating of 2000 scored high rating gains at that time - and then later on moves on to 2800 - that's not super surprising (in fact that's where you would look for explosive growth).
 * But - even correcting for the K-Factor - that didn't happen for them. Slow grinding growth at 2000, even for people who went on to become world champions. 2000+ are not very volatile ratings. You need to have a decent amount of knowledge to just get to that point and that doesn't suddenly disappear. In fact I called their growth slow and grinding. But it wasn't. That's what explosive growth looks like in chess. It just looks slow and grinding compared to the numbers we are currently looking at (or cherry picked ones from 20 years of chess history).
 * If someone between 2100 and 2200 scored extremely high performances - against higher rated players - and then drops back down to 2200 - that's a bit more surprising.
 * Sure, extraordinary things can happen. When you deal with likelyhoods it usually is true that it is extremely unlikely that nothing extremely unlikely ever happens.
 * You had to go back to 2014 for Caruana.
 * But 5 times in a row in one specific place. Not in any place she played in between. And even in this one specific place only against people of certain nationalities? Just before she got the title. And stopping as soon as she had it.
 * Those are extraordinary circumstances.
 * As a side-note: Ideally you would look at performance (and performance causes rating gains/losses), but the official sources only explicitly list rating gains. The high gains in Kecskemet also caused her drop afterwards to be stronger than it had been if she had not been in Kecskemet. If you would just take out the Kecskemet tournaments the rating graph would be more or less constant between 2100 and 2200 (with tethered performances). If you actually saw the performance ratings you would see that she suddenly turned into a much better player (for those 5 tournaments and 56 games (but not in between)).
 * I didn't want to do that since the official numbers do not list performance explicitly. And then you would have to do math to derive the value from the other numbers.
 * And either way... it is a pretty notworthy chain of events. Independent of whether it was caused by luck, temporary skill gains, bribery or picking the perfect tournament with the most overrated players.
 * And again... The facts are noteworthy. Not the interpretation, not either of our opinions and not any insinuation that was made in that article.
 * But you go on believing whatever you want to believe. You can even believe that you are not cherry picking facts to verify your pre-determined opinion. I don't actually care enough.
 * --2A02:810B:C63F:DF78:70AD:D3D8:4929:E7F2 (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)