Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess strategy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. ➥the Epopt 04:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Chess strategy
WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a strategy guide, or any other kind of game guide. There is nothing here other than informally written strategy for a game. This is more appropriate to a place like wikibooks. WP:ILIKEIT are not valid reasons for keeping this article. Crossmr 15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are a bazillion books and articles specifically about chess strategy. Maybe it just needs a bit of cleanup. Clarityfiend 17:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about that. Its about teaching the reader chess strategy. If this is to be an article abotu the history of chess strategy someone needs to completely rewrite it.--Crossmr 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Another very detailed, referenced 5-years old article. Far too large to merge; there has been plenty of published material about chess strategy; its a perfectly valid encyclopedia article. &mdash;Xezbeth 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, this article is not about the history of chess strategy or books written about it. Its a how-to guide for a reader to learn chess strategy. Those are two vastly different things, and the latter clearly violates WP:NOT. The age or size of the article is immaterial.--Crossmr 17:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOT#GUIDE.   While this is a notable topic, notability cannot supersede WP:NOT.   WP:NOT prohibits several notable items Corpx 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While in general we don't keep stratagey guides, I think it's important to note that the subject of the artcle itself is notable (chess strategy is arguably just as notable as the game itself). Now I'm not suggesting that chess should get a free pass simply because it's chess, but you have to keep in mind that the mechanics of chess have been the subject of countless scholarly publications, spanning centuries. Chess may be a board game, but it is arguably the most well-known and widely played game in history, and as such it is appropriate to place the article into context. I think it's appropriate for chess to have an article describing it's gameplay, so long as the article does not read like an instruction manual, and I feel that this article is in keeping with that, addressing the subject from a third party perspective. This is not any more a guide than the military tactics article is a guide to warfare (I know it's not the perfect analogy, but you see what I'm trying to say). If you ask me (which you didn't) the nominator of this article's deletion is being hopelessly pedantic...and I think wikipedia has policy against being pedantic, doesn't it? Calgary 17:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is important to place the article in to context, and the subject of chess is quite notable. However that is not what this article is about. This article isn't about how strategy has changed over the years, major themes in strategies dependent on time frame, etc. The article is instead a guide on chess strategy if one wanted to play the game. Those are two different things. If the article is rewritten to be the former that's fine. If its kept as a guide to playing chess then it should be moved to wikibooks.--Crossmr 19:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The study of chess strategy is a notable discipline that has wide coverage in all forms of media.  To suggest deletion due to WP:NOT is wikilawyering in the first degree. JulesH 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Please see WP:AGF. The notability of the topic is immaterial. Pokemon is a rather notable video game, yet if I created a similar article on strategies for playing it, it would be deleted so fast your head would spin. This is not an article about the coverage its received, if it were that, there would be no problem. The article is instead teaching readers what strategies to use when playing the game, those are two very different things.--Crossmr 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a significant difference between chess and a video game. Chess is a game that has recieved widespread acceptance as a legitimate form of high-skill competition, chess champions gaining international fame both in and outside of the chess-playing community. Including the mechanics of the game is not unreasonable. For example, look at the article on boxing. The article has a fairly detailed section about technique, however it is still not a guide to boxing, as while it reasonably informs the reader regarding the mechanics of the game, it is by no means a detailed educational work or guide to boxing. The same can be said of this article. I have a couple of books (yes, entire books) about playing chess which are essentially chess guides, and they look absolutely nothing like this article. This article supplies information about chess strategy in a manner that can be understood by those who are not intimately familiar with the game, while not actually teaching chess strategy. I fail to see how anyone who reads this article would in some way become better at playing chess, or that the article attempts to do so. The key distinction between an encyclopedic article and a guide/textbook is whether the article teaches the subject or teaches about the subject. And while I'm assuming you've read the entire article, I ask that you at least (for me) go back one more time, and ead it again, and try to gage for yourself which of these two the article does. Calgary 20:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy makes no allowances for notability. If you'd like to discuss policy change you might wish to address that on the policy talk page. I've played chess for 25 years, so I'm well aware of the coverage and notability chess has. For someone who has never played chess before, this is an excellent beginner's guide to chess strategy and things to think about during gameplay. For example it teaches about how you should value your pieces (at least the main article for that goes in to history and other things), how to negotiate control of squares and how you might go about giving some up for more gain later, it talks about important positioning of knights, etc. There is no broad overview here about the history of chess strategy, how it has evolved, etc. Its purely about specific concepts and how you would use them in a game of chess.--Crossmr 20:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See, I undersand what you're saying, but I still disagree with it as a justification for deletion. I'm not going to say that we should go around ignoring WP:NOT, nor am I saying that we need a policy change. My basic argument is that articles that discuss the mechanics of a widespread and common form of competition, especially that of a sanctioned nature, are grounds for an encyclopedic article. I'm not saying they're inherently encyclopedic, but they usually have the potential to be, as does this one. I've already used the boxing article as an example, but let's use another. Look at the volleyball article, which also includes information about the mechanics of the game, or Fencing practice and techniques (the latter of which I think is a bit excessive). I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid justification, but I'm only using them as examples. Now, I'm not saying that chess is a sport, but it's certainly not pokemon or monopoly. I'm not suggesting that chess warrants exclusive status on wikipedia, but it's certainly unique (also take note that there's a WikiProject chess, but no WikiProject Cluedo). The only main difference here is that chess can be learned from thecomfort of your own living room, whereas boxing can not. Still, that does not change the fact that the article provides information regarding chess strategy of an informative nature, but does not act primarily as an instructional guide or a detailed learner's manual. Yes, WP:NOT is official policy, but it is not intended to supercede WP:ENC, rather, it is meant to support it. I am a strong supporter of wikipedia policy, however it is not infallible. Here we have an example of an article that is of an encyclopedic nature, yet it would seem to conflict with WP:NOT, simply because it has the potential to be interpreted as a guide, or used as such. Here we have an example of a situation in which valuable encyclopedic content could be removed because it violates policy on a technicality. Wikipedia policy may be the criteria on which we base deletion, and it may be heavily enforced, but it is not absolute. There are times, rare as they may be, that it is acceptible to make an exception to the rules, times when treating policy as a gold standard both diminish from the quaity of wikipedia content and defy common sense. This case, which is a battle of encyclopedic content versus a pedantic argument, is an appropriate time to exercise that exception if I ever saw one. Calgary 22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, just so I'm clear, you agree that indeed the article does violate WP:NOT but you think an exception should be made in this case because chess is so notable in the world? In complimenting ENC, NOT defines the things that do not get included in not. Game guides and instruction manuals are some of those things. You may wish to read the talk page over at IAR. This is often used by people wanting to keep things which aren't appropriate, sort of like a catch-all. Problem is I could IAR and redirect this to chess, or "list of chess concepts" immediately following this AfD if it survived and where would be? IAR is best invoked when you don't invoke it at all. Chances are if you think "We have this policy which says IAR so I should use this to make my case" you're doing it wrong. I don't really think this article is encyclopedic. As I've said here a few times, if this article were changed to instead be about the history of chess strategy, notable strategists and their ideas, etc it would be an acceptable article. But kept simply as a guide on how to play chess, I don't see the value. There are plenty of beginner's strategy guides on the internet and as its mentione don the talk page of ENC, wikipedia is not the internet, that is what the internet is for.--Crossmr 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you seem to have misunderstood what I am saying. I have contended and still contended that the article is encyclopedic in nature, as it does not serve primarily as a guide or instructional manual. Earlier you made the argument that the article could be regarded as a guide because it has the potential to serve as a beginner's guide, I was simply saying that the potential to serve as a guide is not the same as actually being a game guide, as game guides are inherently not notable, whereas this is well into a gray area (it is not without current or potential encycloppedic value), and that therefore while WP:NOT prohibits game guides, something that has potential to be used as a guide, yet clearly has additional value should not be deleted according to WP:NOT, as even though it is a technical violation of WP:NOT, common sense directs that we do otherwise. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear enough. Also, I am aware of your argument that the specific information in the article is not enough, and that the article would be more encyclopedic if it contained history of chess strategy, the evolution of strategy, etc. I very much agree with you there, however this is not an appropriate justification for deletion, if anything it's a fantastic argument against deletion, as it shows that there is grounds for the article to be expanded and outgrow it's present state. What you're saying is that there is enough information that can be added to the article that the article would no longer qualify for deletion. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the philosophy behind WP:NOT is that an article that is a guide is inherently unencyclopedic, but here we have a case in which the subject is, by admission of the nominator, encyclopedic enough to be included, but simply does not live up to it's potential. I don't think that we generally delete an article because there is significant information about the topic that has not been included in the article, especially if that information's inclusion would void the very rationale behind the aritcle's deletion. I'm not exactly sure what the meaning of a "start" quality article is, but it would seem that we agree that this article should be expanded (which I don't think can be done if it's deleted). Calgary 23:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete even though the topic is notable it violates WP:NOT#GUIDE. Oysterguitarist 21:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Here I shall not speak as vociferously as with Rules of chess, but I see this as a notable topic with sufficient references. Much of the literature about chess has less to do with teaching you and me how to play chess (though of course that is desirable) and more to do with explaining how Alekhine and Capablanca and Karpov and others have played it in the past.  Furthermore, if you delete this main page about chess strategy, you will essentially leave the dozens of de facto subpages out in the cold.  What can we do with chess opening or endgame or passed pawn or backward pawn if we don't have a basic introduction to chess strategy? Shalom Hello 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its notability and references (neither of which are in question) have nothing to do with the AfD. The AfD is about WP:NOT. As far as leaving all these articles out in the cold, there are many ways to bring related articles together on wikipedia. We have templates, lists, and categories, as well as "see also" sections of articles.--Crossmr 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There will be enough references for strategy of any game out there. Board game to the latest cutting edge pc game.  Heck, I think I could write complete guides for multiple games, but WP is not a game guide.  Corpx 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. If this is to be an article abotu the history of chess strategy someone needs to completely rewrite it. Even if the current article may be unencyclopedic in nature (I'm not getting into a debate on this here), the nominator acknowledges that the article could be rewritten to fix this. Therefore, unless my understanding of the purpose of AfD is mistaken, this isn't an article that should be deleted outright; concerns over its content should be discussed elsewhere (on the talk page perhaps?) youngvalter 22:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article isn't really billed or named as a history of chess strategy. As such as the article is written and appears to be intended its a game guide. If we didn't delete any title that could be potentially rewritten in to something encyclopedic, we'd almost never get rid of anything (outside of things with unique names like websites/products/bands). I was simply giving an example between this article and a possible article that illustrates the difference between acceptable and unacceptable. The name might not even be Chess strategy.--Crossmr 23:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I agree with all of the reasons for keeping the article and find the reasons given for deleting it nonsensical.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reason for that? This is a debate not a vote.--Crossmr 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Chess strategy is not about instructions, advice, suggestions, or "how-to"s (WP:NOT). It can be an encyclopedic history of its development; an elucidation for newcomers; a clarifying resource for experts; a mainstay of Wikipedia. This page does not advise or instruct, but explains. There is much too much important information to be contained in a single article on Chess, which already maxes out at 77 kilobytes. As a featured article, you can’t dump the relevant information into it. And you don’t delete an article that needs rewritten, you rewrite it. You would gain nothing by deleting this article, for Wikipedia deserves something on the subject. It’s a convenient categorization, overview, and analysis for all its sub-topics and pages. Wikipedia would not be complete without a page for Chess strategy. –Sarregouset (Talk) 00:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a game guide. It is no different than a game guide for a pc game Corpx 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See, that's it, it's not the same as a guide to a video game. It's interesting that the Wikipedia article for Strategy guide refers exclusively to video games, which leads me to believe that WP:NOT is meant to refer to a "game guide" as defined by Wikipedia. In any case, a guide to a video game and this article are two completely different things, as a video game is almost entirely a form of entertainment, whereas chess, although played recreationally by some, is a purely skill-based competition between two people, and as it is often played competitively (and if you're going to say that video games are also played competitively, take note that chess competitons are generally held in much higher regard than video game competitions), and because chess as a form of competition is of widespread interest, chess technique and strategy are of scholarly interest even to those who are not interested in learning how to play chess. Calgary 02:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It isn't "jump over two barrels, pull the rope, go up the ladder and you'll get to the next level."  It is completely different from instructions for a video game.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would hardly characterize video games as "jump over barrels...".  E-Sports is a pretty big deal these days.   These tournaments are exclusively about skill, teamwork and strategy.   There are plenty of major "gaming leagues" out there like this one with lots of big time sponsors.   I would think there is much more to write about in a strategy guide about Counter-Strike or CS:Source or any of the games that the "pros" compete in.   I would argue that more skill and strategy is required to play these games than chess.  Corpx 03:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but chess is well established as a competitive "sport" (even if it does not have the athletic qualities of a sport, competitive chess, as sanctioned by FIDE, has arguable similarities to a sport)) with a significant audience, meaning that it is likely to be of interest to a significant number of people, including those who do not themselves play chess. Therefore it is very reasonable that someone would be interested in understanding the game, including the strategy involved, even if they are not interested in playing the game, meaning that this information is applicable and widely useful to people when not used as an educational guide. Therefore, because it is of encyclopedic value in a form that does not violate WP:NOT the article should be kept. Calgary 03:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for some reason (slow dial up lines? old browsers that truncate?) the powers that be at WP don't like long articles; if we had didn't have that to run up against, I'd say merge with Chess, but we seem to have that limit and hacking off rules, strategy, and tactics is as efficient a way of dealing with that as any I could come up with. Carlossuarez46 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When an article gets too big, its best to trim off contents in violation of WP:NOT than to expand to a new article. Corpx 02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There is room for one more good article in this encyclopedia and WP:NOT is an overworked argument in this debate. --Stormbay 03:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its the basis for the proposed deletion.--Crossmr 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Speedy Keep This is a joke, right?  KP Botany 03:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is, I'm not laughing. Calgary 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but this isn't a vote. Do you have some relevant policy to cite?--Crossmr 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete We don't have an article on Hungry Hungry Hippos strategy. What's the difference? Just kidding!  Strongest possible Keep! I can't believe there are still 37 million Pokemon articles on Wikipedia and deleting chess strategy seemed like a priority to someone.    Complete misunderstanding of both the letter and spirit of WP:NOT. --JayHenry 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, nothing like the old Pokemon argument. But yes, I agree, complete misreading. Calgary 04:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a complete misreading of the WP:NOT policy, or a complete misreading of the articles. The articles don't give any usable Chess strategies or tactics.  I think, though, if you were unfamiliar with chess you might think they are chess playing guides, but being the proud owner of a couple of boxes of chess playing guides (I loathe the game, though) left by my siblings, I can assure you that these articles are 100% worthless as chess playing guides.  So, something was misread.  Chess playing guides are pages and pages of chess diagrams with moves and alternatives based upon the strength of your opponent, and elaborate discussions of single moves that would bore one to tears.  When my brother and sister get together to discuss chess they sound like these books: 3 hours discussing a single possible move, followed by the conclusion that a strong opponent would not select that move, therefore an alternative move would be made, and another 6 hours discussing the move that was made.  No Wikipedia article could ever be a book on Chess tactics or strategies because it would bore the editors to death making the ten billion trillion diagrams.  These don't look anything like chess-playing guides.  KP Botany 04:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised with what editors on wikipedia will delve in to that many would find boring. While these are useless for any kind of real study of chess strategy or tactics, all they are are basic chess strategies. There is no background, or expansion. They're plain and simple "When someone is playing chess, they should keep this in mind" or "look for this kind of move". Discussion don't have to be elaborate to be a guide.--Crossmr 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pokemon, aside, the article has to stand on its own.--Crossmr 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it stands up very well on its own. Calgary 04:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.