Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 11

Link to FIDE ratings
www.FIDE.com has been changed, and it appears that now you have to link to http://66.232.119.96/ratings/ instead of www.fide.com/ratings for player ratings. Bubba73 (talk), 05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed Template:fide so that it works again, but I wouldn't be surprised if FIDE makes more changes to their website so that we need to update the template once more, possibly even to use fide.com as before. The template is very simple, so just about anyone can make this kind of fix if needed.  This is an excellent example of why it is better to use Template:fide and Template:chessgames player rather than hard-coding those external links into the page.  I think we should consider creating a template for http://www.olimpbase.org as well.  Quale (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the existence of either of those templates. They should definitely be mentioned in the Templates section of this project page as they're very useful. Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is a piece?
We need to say something about the two different meanings of "piece", depending on the context. This is especially important in articles that non-chessplayers are likely to read. For instance, see the talk page of Immortal game, "What is a piece?" section. It is in List of chess terms, and we can link to that. But is there a better way to do it? Perhaps a short article that explains the two different contexts that can be linked to, or maybe expand the Chess Terms one a little? Bubba73 (talk), 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It a good question and highly confusing even when English is not your second language!
 * It says in the Immortal game LEAD "He gives up both rooks and then his queen, checkmating his opponent with his three remaining pieces". Later it says White has been able to use his remaining pieces - two knights and a bishop - to force mate.
 * piece = all but pawns. So Q, R, B, N, K.
 * pieces = all pieces K, Q, R, B, N, P or and confusingly a collection of piece being pieces.
 * The lead is okay, because it's talking about checkmating - this is the context and that is done with exactly three pieces. However more confusion comes because in the final position White giving mate has a total of four pieces (two knights, a bishop and a King) and ten pieces (two knights, a bishop, a King and 6 pawns). SunCreator (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of two different meanings. To me it's always been clear- a "piece" refers to either knight, bishop, rook, queen or king, but not pawns. If pieces and pawns are referred to then the term is "chessmen", or just "men". Maybe it's old fashioned now but it's what I was taught!Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't say I've used the word 'Chessmen' but have read it. Isn't the word difficult if one of the 'Chessmen' is a women, the Queen? SunCreator (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Piece" as both meanings, see Chess terminology. And from Burgess: "Can be used to signify either any chess piece, or a major or minor piece, as opposed to a pawn.  Generally the context makes the meaning clear." Bubba73 (talk), 00:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course "piece" can be used loosely to refer to pawns but as it has a more specific meaning I think that should be avoided, to avoid confusion. The main chess article, for example, says each side begins the game with sixteen pieces; that should say eight pieces and eight pawns, or sixteen chessmen (alhough I take SunCreator's point about the queen). Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That particular thing was debated once, and it was decided that each side has sixteen physical pieces. That's what the references say too.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one who thinks that "generally the context makes the meaning clear" a la Burgess isn't good enough? It clearly does cause confusion, as the Immortal game Talk page shows. Why don't we just stick to the proper, specific meaning?Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is proper to use it both ways, as in the two references. Also see how FIDE laws of chess uses the word - it is inthere over 60 times, and every one is in the general sense.  Do you want the touch-move rule to read "if a player touches a piece or a pawn or his king..."?  I don't think so.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See above where I mentioned "chessman" or "man" as an alternative. But I won't pursue the point any further as I don't seem to be getting any support:) Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as Immortal game, I changed the first link to minor piece. That should work for that article, but not all.  The difference is explained in Chess terms and now it is in the lead of Chess piece.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those changes. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
"I would just like to say that I am extremely grateful for these pages. I can't afford any chess books (I don't get allowance or get paid for any chores by my parents) so the only resource I have is the internet through the library. I don't know how many people have thanked you all for taking the trouble to post this information up, but I'd like to just be another person to tell you that I've been reading all of this! I just hope that some wiki mod doesn't show up and delete the pages saying it's too much information, because I've seen articles cut down a lot because of it. Anyway, you guys can just delete this after a bit, but I just wanted to give a thank you because this is the best!" From edit history . Thought you might like to know someone does appreciate our work. SunCreator (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that there is a lot more about chess in Wikipedia than in Wikibooks. The Wikibooks stuff seems limited and isn't updated much.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is sadly true. Seems that many editors are not aware or are not wanting to help out. There has been significant improvements to the last few weeks, including the setting up of a Wikibooks:Chess project, a public watchlist for the chess articles and a Chess opening template for navigation which is now established on every relevant chess page. I'm sure it will grow over time, but for now it is a bit thin in many areas. SunCreator (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand why editors are that way. I'm that way myself.  Wikibooks doesn't seem to have many readers compared to Wikipedia.  Wikipedia shows up at the top of Google searches but not Wikibooks.  Since I'm giving my time to try to help people, I want to do it where it will do some good.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to FIDE rules
Since FIDE changed their website, the link to the Laws of Chess has changed. This is referenced in a number of places. The new link is FIDE Laws of chess. I've changed it at the end of rules of chess, but the old page is referenced in several articles, I think.

Strangely, it is very hard to get to this page on the new website. If you go to Handbook and click on "Laws of Chess", all you get is the appendix for adjourned games, blind players, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

pawn symbol
Is it easy to get a better symbol for a pawn for use in the "chess pieces" table and in the diagrams? The one in Chess symbols in Unicode looks much better. Bubba73 (talk), 05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wizard's Chess
I'm going to remove this from the list of articles to create. While I suggested it should be a separate from Magical objects in Harry Potter and an interesting one from a chess perspective because of this from Jeremy Silman. The problem is that I can't establish notability for "Wizard's Chess" on it's own. The Jeremy Silman link is not an independent source and while the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone film/book is quite significant it's only one scene. If anyone knows of this articles notability that I've missed please let me know. SunCreator (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Where should "chess notation" go?

 * 1) Where should "chess notation" go, if it is only used in one section - at the top of the article or at the top of that section?  Bubba73 (talk), 02:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) When an article referrs to squares by their algebraic designation, but no moves, should "chess notation" be used?

My opinion: top and yes. Bubba73 (talk), 03:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Without too much thinking, I would tend to agree. SyG (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bubba and SyG. The first one (where) for no real particular reason except that I find templates in the middle of articles to be uglier than templates at the top of articles. The second one (when) is because the template is unobtrusive and useful for any article where chess notation is used, and naming of squares are a part of notation. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's an article about Chess then at the top, if it's Biography about a person then in the section that applies. Your most like referring to how it's done in Bobby Fischer, in that article it seems out of proportion to have it at the top. SunCreator (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus yes, to the second part, although would be interested to see an example to check. SunCreator (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the change in Bobby Fischer is what brought it up. For the other question, Pawn (chess) used to have "chess notation", but it was removed on April 11.  There are no moves in the article, but squares are named by their algebraic coordinates.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm here :-)
In the next time I'll be here for articles about chess composers (see my userpage). Hopefully you won't get too annoyed with me. :-) Oh, please tell me again where to add new articles! --Constructor 00:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the WikiProject Chess, we always love to have new contributors on board! Don't hesitate to ask the community for help, advice or comments. Have fun! SyG (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, will look through the archives. Hopefully I'll find it. Yes, I always have fun! Hey, don't get too acquainted to me, I'll leave when the articles are done. :-) --Constructor 17:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is wikipedia—the articles are never done! You probably know about this already, but you can look at Category:Chess problemists and Category:Chess problems to see what we have now on chess problems.  I don't think any of the most active members of WP:CHESS have a strong interest in chess composition, so this area of our coverage could be improved.  Thanks for your help. Quale (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you probably don't know - I'm one of the most active writers on de about this. So I know what Wikipedia is. --Constructor 19:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be able to improve Deutsche Schachzeitung then, if you like. I just created it.  I used some material from Deutsche Schachzeitung, but I don't read (or speak) German, so I couldn't make out all of the German language article (which has no sources listed anyway).  You could also talk to the goof who removed the interwiki link I added there, since unless things are very different on the German language wikipedia, interwiki links don't constitute "no improvement" or "vandalism". Quale (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now there are sources listed! --Constructor 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at this later! --Constructor 21:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He says, it was probably due to a database issue and a wrong click on "back" in the browser and "revert" (without looking at the interwiki first). See his reply in german here. At the moment there are lots of database issues on de (one reason I don't want to continue as much there at the moment). --Constructor 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard! It is great to have new people joining the project. To answer your question, new articles should be added in the List of chess topics. Happy editing!Voorlandt (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That was what I meant! --Constructor 21:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible spam
User:Sv9 seems to be adding external links to YouTube videos. The person in the video (Serguei Vorojtsov) has initials SV, so this is likely the same person. I watched one video, and it seemed OK to me, but what do others think about them staying in? Bubba73 (talk), 05:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are these the same as the ones discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 9? In this case the consensus was delete, so I have been slowly deleting them as I have found them. In general, I think only IM or GM analysis is notable for the external links section. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have looked at one of the videos posted by User:Sv9, the one on Paul Morphy. The quality was rather poor: no explanation of the first 6 moves (by then, Morphy already had an overwhelming advantage!), no strategic consideration, no alternatives considered, etc. The presentator is certainly a great chessplayer, but not a good teacher I am afraid. This video did not bring a lot more information than a PGN.
 * Regarding our general attitude towards videos, I would propose the following principles:
 * judge each video separately, on the basis of what value it brings to the article
 * for a given article, retain at most one video in the external links (only the best one, arguably)
 * judge each video on the insight it would bring to the mainstream reader, i.e. generally a very weak player.
 * SyG (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * About User:Sv9, here are some facts:
 * The first 4 edits he did were to upload images about Serguei Vorojtsov solving classical mechanics problems.
 * His 5th edit was to add Serguei Vorojtsov in the article List of YouTube celebrities (now really...); strangely enough that was deleted rapidly :-)
 * His following edits were to add videos made by Serguei Vorojtsov on chess articles.
 * It seems he also tried to create an article about Serguei Vorojtsov, but that was speedy deleted.
 * Of course we should foremost WP:AGF and not jump to quick conclusions about his real identity and his intentions for Wikipedia... SyG (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My vote is just to blanket delete. I watched Levitsky-Marshall. It was entertaining, but not instructive at all and contained a 'full on' advert for a chess sales site at the end. These are just elaborate advertisements in my opinion and Peter Ballard is right to remind us of the past discussions. 'Bidmonfa' are currently taking over the biographies too - their worth seems to rely solely on a photo - and as we have a growing number here on wiki, I can't see why we should support them either. I think we need to be vigilant and remove everything except Chessgames.com, which brings a range of 'wiki editor-friendly' tools (database, reasonably reliable biography data, forum discussion of topical and historical issues ... etc.) and most importantly, no blatant advertising. Brittle heaven (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't find the links to the videos in question. My take would be to judge each video separately and include only those that bring value to the article. SunCreator (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Found three of them now on the history. They are not very good in presentation, nor useful to the topic matter. Did like Lasker's King hunt game, perhaps we can make use of that game(the game not the video) in the future. SunCreator (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brittle heaven. Quale (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I watched the Evans-Reshevsky one, and it stops just before the famous desparado swindle, and give an advertisement. I think it should go, and SyG has deleted it.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a few chess videos to the Hebrew WIKI. I did not see any advertisement so I think the best would be to judge every game by itself. By the way - most readers do not play chess at any rated level so the sentence "I think only IM or GM analysis is notable for the external links section" is a bit too much. Most players (99.99% of the WIKI readers) can benefit from an analysis of a 2000 rated player (much weaker than a master but still a capable player) as what he can show them is much to much for them. The delicate points that an IM or a GM can show them they would not understand anyway, and they do not have the patience to spend a few hours so that they may see his point. And remember that a video is very short, usually, and you can not get into deep explanations. For this kind of analysis we have chessbase (or other products - please do not think that this is an advertisement) and books. --Niemzowitsch (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-assessment of many articles for quality.
Have been re-assessed over 200+ chess articles in the last few days. All B-Class and above or Top/High importance, over 200 articles in total.

Results are presented in a neat sortable table. I would post it here but it's rather big(!). It has really useful figures like traffic statistics, class and importance. Because the table is sortable it's really ideal to compare, say quality against important and importance against daily traffic.

The table can be found at Chess assessment, along with a link to how the assessment figures are worked out. SunCreator (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is quite a feat, well done! Very useful to have a general idea of where we should put our efforts first. SyG (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A crazy intense few hours! Where do you think efforts should be put as a result of this information? SunCreator (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. The idea of awarding points to every article WikiProject Chess/Assessment has its merits. But the current system can definitely be improved on. Some suggestions for improvement:
 * Although the system claims to be indicative for quality, it very much focusses on quantity. An article should be of a length suitable for the subject, so short well written articles get punished in this system.
 * Things like spelling, grammar, tone, style and stylistic issues are ignored. These are all extremely important for an FA push. As an example, proper referencing is totally ignore. (eg First move advantage in chess has currently the most points, but fails to cite websites correctly (they miss the access/retrieved date).
 * Negative points get awarded for the article not chess project focused. As far as I know, quality has nothing to do with the subject matter. Personally, I would not award negative points, but only positive. EG +3 for completeness, +2 for style, etc..
 * Voorlandt (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is indeed a lot of good work. One thing I noticed is that with a few exceptions, 7 points or higher is a B (or higher).


 * However, Voorlandt has a valid point about quality versus quantity. There is a lot to say about World Chess Championship, but how much is there to be said about Castling?  This also applies to references.  For inztance, the MoS says that it is OK for a short article to have just a list of references instead of inline references.  A short article may have no inline references but have the Oxford Companion listed as a reference, and that could be sufficient.  Also, about the table of contents - that depends on the number of sections the article has and a setting in your preferences tells how many sections are required to show to TOC. But good work overall.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I never knew that about the TOC setting, you learn something everyday. :) SunCreator (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Yes, thank for your ideas. It does indeed give weight to quantity. I don't think there is any claim to be indicative for quality, if so it's likely a typo! There is a trade off between assessing an article in a reasonable time span and looking for a more refined detail. Perhaps the next review of a article will be the more refined type but for a lesser number of articles. Checking to the level of cite websites correctly would be rather time consuming I would imagine and somewhat hindering because only web references can easily be checked unless you have the various books in question. One thing that comes to focus is articles that nearing completion but still have little content. I'm not sure such articles could ever achieve GA status, so perhaps they are better off to be merged with other articles? Or maybe not, but those type of articles are the ones that seem to be struggling, although even then an article like en passant should be able to get to 9 or 10 points which puts it clearly in the area where all such articles are equivalent to B-Class. SunCreator (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea, en passant is an interesting example. It is the only one with 6 points that is B, and most of the ones with 7 points or more are B or higher.  I've worked on the article and I am the one that raized it to B a days ago.  It gets 400+ hits per day, so a lot of people are reading it.  But I think it is fairly complete, and I can't think of anything else to day about it.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * More on en passant, the content rating of 2 points says it has 3-4 paragraphs, but I count 7, not counting the "illustration" section that has three diagrams with captions but no paragraph, per se.  The rating of 1 point for references says 3-4, but there is one external link to a game, five books listed as general references, plus an external link to the FIDE laws (which should really be a reference.)  Bubba73 (talk), 22:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Five paragraphs. 3-5 for 2 points.(sorry 5 was absence from summary before). Three paragraphs before the TOC and two in 'Historical context'. One line sentence not counted. Diagram captions aren't counted unless they are a mouthful, which these are not. There are six references as you correctly highlight and that count as 2 ref points not one, my mistake seems references been added since it was assessed. External links don't count. My recommendation for this article is to somehow make an animation, it's really hard to grasp without seeing it in action at least once. I remember as a beginner how tricky this idea is. SunCreator (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are the three snapshot diagrams. I don't know how to make an animation.  Also, I count seven paragraphs: Lead: 3, example in opening: 1 (admittedly one sentence, but includes moves and diagram caption), example in game: 1 (three sentences plus diagram captions and moves), history: 2.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * GIMP would do it, it's free, it can do it, but it's rather tedious unless you are a bit advanced at using software. If you go that route, I might be able to at least piont the right way, I have GIMP but know it can be quite unproductive time wise.
 * I discounted middle bits as short sentences. While technically short sentences can be paragraphs if it's got some a few full stops. I've not counted that, counting two full lines of text and more, stretching into the third line at least. The third paragraph as in the lead is about the minimum. SunCreator (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. My point is not to argue about this article or how paragraphs/references are counted. But this article does show how an article can say about all there is to be said about a subject, yet get a relatively low rating.  As I said, I don't know much more it can say.  It says more than rulebooks and chess encyclopedias.  It has the lead, a simple illustration, an example from the opening, an example from an interesting game where first it was not used and then it was used to checkmate, and some history.  In some other articles (touch-move rule, threefold repetition, castling) I've added some "human interest" stuff, and fifty move rule has a bit where Kasparov and Karpov could have claimed the draw but didn't.  But I don't know much else this article needs, other than the annimation you suggest.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your right in concept here there are some articles like En passant and ICCF numeric notation that can't go beyond B-Class. If I understand correctly En passant is to small to meet GA-articles criteria. This leaves the question what to do with it. Should we be happy when it's a complete B-Class article or aim to go higher by say adding it to another article as a section, perhaps a section in Rules of chess, although can imagine this would cause unbalancing of Rules of chess article. It's a question I don't know the answer to, but would like to hear comments. SunCreator (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should be left as its own article. It is already discussed in the Rules article, this is more in-depth.  Making this a section in Rules would make that article out of balance.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Been reading through some FA discussion and seems no technical small size limitation to an article, however apparently small articles don't get submitted to the FA process. Not familiar enough with FA/GA workings to know why that is. SunCreator (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think articles such as en passant should ever be FA. I don't think our goal should be make every chess article a FA.  I think FA should be reserved for a select number of our articles with the widest appeal.  Of course, non-FA articles should be as good as they need to be.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that FA is not a required endpoint for all articles. I haven't followed GA criteria closely, but the GA process is fairly widely considered broken (by many at WP:Mathematics for instance, and they have many more "good" articles than we do).  In general the whole article review process concentrates heavily on what an article looks like on the surface level (lots of purty pictures, a certain ratio of inline cites/sentence, a certain number of sentences, paragraphs, and sections, etc.)  It's basically an accounting exercise that rarely pays much attention at all to what the article actually says.
 * I think this discussion itself pretty much answers the question of why short articles don't get submitted to FA. I think worshiping the cult of the large article is harmful to writing a good encyclopedia.  I actually have no problem with the end point for many small articles being B-class, and don't consider that to be a problem or an insult.  On the other hand, I think a small, policy and guideline compliant, substantially complete, referenced article deserves a B-class rating unless it really is so small that it is a stub that ought to be merged.  ICCF numeric notation vastly exceeds a should-be-merged stub, and in my opinion is not far from B-class now. Quale (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Revised table with 400 articles assessed. Added extra columns including column suggesting articles most in need of improvement. SunCreator (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you doing that all by hand (no software to help)? Either way, that seems like a ton of work.  We appreciate it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's largely manual but I'm using Microsoft Excel to store, add up, sort and format. I'm not sure if that counts as 'software'. It's been a ton of work to setup, but adding new ones is quite straightforward, but I don't intend expanding more then the covered 400 articles as all top importance, high importance and B-Class articles are included.. SunCreator (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ľudovít Lehen
Members of the WikiProject are asked to help ascertain the notability of Ľudovít Lehen at this AfD. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

William Samuel Viner
William Samuel Viner seems to be a copyright violation. The original source is very good and I think it could be rewritten to avoid the copyvio and be a good article. If anyone who is interested in Australian chess or just in chess bios in general would care to rewrite it, that would be great. I should do it, but I don't have the energy for that project right now and the copyvio can't be allowed to remain for long. Quale (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Chess variants
Where does WP:CHESS begin and end with chess variants. I noticed some Shogi variants that are not assessed within the chess project. SunCreator (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A good criterion would be inclusion in the classified encyclopedia of chess variants (by David Pritchard). I also think that inclusion in this book is a minimum requirement for the inclusion of a chess variant in wikipedia (minimum, definitely not sufficient, as some only get one or two lines in the book). On the Shogi variants, Pritchard spends about 10 pages on them. If you have examples, I can look them up to see if they are there. Voorlandt (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Easiest to include the Shogi variant template(right), also a few Shogi related topics as follows: GNU Shogi, Kifu, Tsumeshogi, XShogi SunCreator (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm that is a lot of variants. I am really not sure what is best. Clearly Shogi (very similar to Crazyhouse) is a chess variant. Gets over 10 pages in Pritchard's encyclopedia (for comparison, Bughouse chess gets two pages). Perhaps the easiest (and least controversial?) decision would be to include no shogi variants (but of course still Shogi). Judging case by case is in any case hard. Voorlandt (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we need this article?
Do we need ECO A03? I haven't checked to see if there are others like it, but a year or so ago I think that we generally agreed that we don't need an article on each ECO code. Bubba73 (talk), 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the rest of the A and B codes are in there as redirects to list of chess openings. Bubba73 (talk), 03:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty worthless to me. If we want to list all the ECO codes, the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings article or someplace like that is the place to do so. I think very few readers, be they strong chessplayers or weak, are ever going to find or use the ECO A03 article. I say we get rid of the thing. Krakatoa (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, let's try to avoid having hundreds of stubs while one single article can do better. SyG (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to make it a redirect then. Bubba73 (talk), 15:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need them no. I recently redirected ECO_A01 and ECO_A02. There is quite a lot but I think they are all redirected now. SunCreator (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are A00-99 and B00-99, all were redirects except A03, and I made it a redirect. Bubba73 (talk), 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

First-move advantage in chess passed A-class
On 3rd May 2008, the article First-move advantage in chess has successfully passed the A-class review! The number of "quality articles" (say GA-class and higher) goes from 5 to 6, a 20% increase! Thanks to Krakatoa for his immense work on the article, and to Bubba73, SyG, SunCreator, Voorlandt, Quale and others for their critical reviews. The detail of the review can be found at WikiProject Chess/Review or in the table hereunder: SyG (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your suggestions, help with the article, and votes! Woo hoo! Krakatoa (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the chess portal?
There seems to be a problem with the chess portal, specifically the recently added article First-move advantage in chess. Now that it's an A-class article, it's been added four places on the Selected article list. If one looks at, say, space 10, First-move advantage in chess appears to be the article assigned to that space. But if one clicks on the space 10 link on the left, it shows the article for Emanuel Lasker. The same thing happens, with a different article instead of the Lasker one, if one clicks on any of the other three places to which the article is assigned. Can someone fix this, please? Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, my mistake, I will fix that immediately. SyG (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Krakatoa (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got a crosstable book?
The recent article the American Chess Congress has complete crosstables for all nine editions except the 1921 eight American Chess Congress in Atlantic City. I added a few results from what I could find online, but it would be nice if we could complete it. It is probably covered in either of: I hope someone can help out! Voorlandt (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Queen sacrifice
Queen sacrifice is listed on the main page as needing work, and it does. Or do we really need an article on queen sacs seperate from sacrifice (chess)? None of the three chess encyclopedias that I have have an article "queen sacrifice". Bubba73 (talk), 15:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the time being I do not see why "queen sacrifice" could not be merged into "sacrifice". I prefer to have one consistent article that several stubs. SyG (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the article has just been improved. Bubba73 (talk), 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It could also be merged into Queen (chess). Longer term I'm thinking that the piece articles, would be including material about piece use.
 * For example in the Queen topic you would cover
 * Opening: Development of Queen into enemy position early (eg Scholars mate, Center Game) and development not into enemy position (eg Nimzo-Indian with Qc2).
 * Middlegame: Queen attack against enemy king with other pieces eg. pawn(with fixed pawn wedge), Knight(Knight on 5th/6th rank attacking 7th rank pawns), with Bishop=(on weak squares in front of king) also Greek gift sacrifice, with rooks(back rank and 7th rank attacks), Queen Sacrifice
 * Ending: Queen Vs Pawn, Queen Vs Rooks & Bishop etc
 * although I recognise there is a requirement to go carefully because of a perception of WP:NOTHOWTO. SunCreator (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of covering the articles about the pieces that way. Most of them need improvement.  I don't like the idea of merging queen sacrifice with queen (chess); if it is to be merged I think sacrifice (chess) would be better.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And I don't think "how to" is a problem if you approach it correctly. Don't say what to do - tell how it is done.  Don't say "move your queen here", tell what masters have done and have written about.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think queen sacrifice has more to do with sacrifices than it has to do with queens, so if it is to be merged, the sacrifice article is the proper target. However, I don't know if this is really necessary, The Art of Sacrifice in Chess has a whole chapter devoted to the queen sacrifice so in terms of notability, I think it is reasonable to call it notable enough for a separate article. Combine this with the certain romanticism there is around sacrificing the queen, and I can understand a certain interest from the reader in having a separate article on queen sacrifices. Also, any merging will need a patient editor who is good at tailoring. The present sacrifice (chess) article looks like a patchwork. It is not a bad or useless article, but I feel the information is a bit all over the place (I'll admit as a contributor to that article that I may have contributed to the problem there), and merging queen sacrifice in with that via the "copy and paste text dump" method will make the problem worse. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that queen sacrifice is sufficiently notable. I can think of some games to illustrate "real" queen sacs. If anyone wants to follow this up, post a mesage on my Talk page.
 * Ditto sacrifice (chess). Themes I can think of include:
 * Real vs pseudo-sacs. Not a rigid distinction, it's bounded by calculation range.
 * Positional vs tactical sacs.
 * Big sacs (e.g. Q) vs small ones (P, exchange).
 * Common sacs, e.g.: of B on h7 or f7 (by White) and on h2 or f2 (by Black); exchange sacs, especially on c6 / c3; various sacs by White on e6 in Sicilian.
 * Gambit openings, including "gambits" played later, e.g. Chatard-Alekhine in orthodox French, some variations of (semi-)Slav.
 * How to deal with sacs: take and try to defend; partial or total return of sac'd material at an opportune moment; ignore; counter-attack.
 * Would probably take at least 2 passes to get it right, as details will have to be spawned into daughter articles. Philcha (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, let's keep it but improve it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Antonio Fistonić
Could someone please search for references for Antonio Fistonić so that the article can be kept? If the person never existed, then the article should be tagged for deletion. --Eastmain (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good candidate for deletion, could even be a hoax, as 'Fist' appears in both the subject and author's names. He's certainly obscure if Mibelz hasn't heard of him. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have PRODed it. SyG (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

World Chess Championship
Sources I've found while researching edits to Wilhelm Steinitz and Adolf Anderssen indicate that the idea of a recognised world champion goes back to the mid-1840s and only gradually became clearer. Among other things that pulls the rung from under the distinction between official and unofficial world champions. I therefore think World Chess Championship needs a rewrite. Talk:World Chess Championship summarises the main points. Please comment there. Philcha (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)