Talk:Serafino Dubois

old talk
This article is marked as POV and cleanup, but I can't really see any grave issues with neither, particularly with the neutrality. Of couse, most articles can allways be improved uppon, but that doesn't automatically make them candidates for cleanup. This one is on par. I propose to remove the tags in a couple of weeks if no one objects. -Frodet 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Second the motion. I'll go ahead and do that now. Kerowyn 06:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Chessmetrics and WP:UNDUE
Chessmetrics has many shortcomings, particularly for 19th century players. Sometimes players drop off the list for several years at a time then come back, in the mean time a lesser player has taken over the number one ranking spot. Does anybody seriously believe Berthold Suhle was the world #1 player between 1865 and 1867? Another, perhaps more accurate historical rating system can be found at edochess.ca; they rate Dubois #5 at his peak, which sounds more realistic to me than #1. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Chessmetrics has no rated games for Dubois during the 2.5-year period when it has him ranked #1. And even Edochess ratings and rankings have to be taken with a huge grain of salt: Dubois was ranked #7 at the end of 1860 and #5 at the end of 1861, even though neither he nor the two people he passed on the rating list (Petrov and Harrwitz) played a single game that year. Misuse of these historical rating websites is a frequent problem with our chess biographies. Cobblet (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)