Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 20

Image:Kasparov v Deepblue.gif
File:Kasparov v Deepblue.gif has been nominated for deletion. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Rombaua Trap
This seems to be a hoax. Who is or what is Rombaua? --MrsHudson (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Chessbase has one game by a Rombaua. I don't know if it is real or not. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It does seem lacking in references and has only been edited by 1 user. I would think that even if it does it exist it could well be original research.Tetron76 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It does not even correspond to the definition of a chess trap, does it ? SyG (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, very strange article. --MrsHudson (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a trap of sorts at move 12. Rombaua is a surname found in the Philippines, maybe a person who created it, played it or fell for it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Redundant categories
There are many redundant categories in the chess bios and I am starting to remove them. Any sub-category should add information that isn't better added through another category. There are chess players who have multiple nationalities ie british chess player, french chess player, jewish chess player, etc... I am starting with Jewish chess players, where there cannot even be someone who is an international representative of that country. As the profile already calls them a Jew I don't see how being a Jewish chess player could be relevant. Especially, as this has encouraged non-notable profiles and the inclusion of players such as Garry Kasparov with no mention that he is Jewish in the article. I got as far as A-C.Tetron76 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Redundant? Well, Alexander Beliavsky for example, play chess for three counties and I don't see reason for removing categories!? --AndrejJ (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't remove those categories. The Jewish chess players cat has been to WP:CFD and kept, so removing it without cause would be disruptive.  It should be removed from any page that doesn't have a good source for the claim, but otherwise leave them alone. Quale (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Too late. The edits Tetron76 is making look like this edit to Grace Alekhine which replaced Category:American chess players with Category:Americans, replaced Category:British chess players with Category:British people, replaced Category:French chess players with Category:French people and Category:Jewish chess players with Category:Jews.  This is disruptive and has to stop. Quale (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The categories don't mean what you think they mean. Being an England Cricketer is not the same as being an English Cricketer. My edits were designed to remove the category Jewish chess player and I was merely trying to save time in the future. I will restore the nationality followed by chess player that I made.Tetron76 (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A category should convey different information to the terms combined. Such as a grandmaster who is also chess player does not have to be a grandmaster at chess, hence you desire the category chess grandmaster. What happens is that there are people who have been assigned 5 nationalities (not even correctly) they then play chess at any level and they are then placed into 5 chess player categories add Jewish to this you get 5 categories of Jew and another chess player category. Categories are not the same as lists a page does not appear in the subcategories. To add in nationalities means that eventually everyone of of chess categories has to have 300+ subcategories ie German chess grandmaster (blending: german chess player with german grandmaster.) I will go through the deletion process to remove a category as meaningful as blonde chess players.Tetron76 (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that the reversions have already been done.Tetron76 (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are simply wrong about what categories are and how they are used on wikipedia. You should spend some time reading WP:CAT and WP:COP, and then examine how large categories such as Category:Sportspeople by sport and nationality are organized.  There's a reason why Bobby Fischer is not in Category:Icelandic chess players, but it requires a distressing amount of vigilance to fix it when the clueless add it.  If you want to delete a category you are going about it the wrong way.  You should look at Categories for Discussion and follow the proper procedures. Quale (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tetron76, you write: "My edits were designed to remove the category Jewish chess player and I was merely trying to save time in the future." Regardless of the merits of the Jewish chess player category, your way of going about it, emptying categories before having an established consensus for it, is a fait accompli approach which has been prohibited by ArbCom on at least two occasions . It is inappropriate to remove articles from categories where they belong, merely because you disagree with the category's existence. If you want that category removed, you must first gain consensus for that at WP:CFD, and if that ends with a "delete" result, the removals are handled quickly by a bot, so the "time saving" argument is without any objective merit. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  13:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have realised my error in this respect and I apologise for the inconvenience as well as breeching wikipedia policy.Tetron76 (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also didn't realise about the bot. I had started a CfD after (belatedly) reading up on it because I believe that wikipedia is very clear on this particular point ie WP:OC even if I don't convince anyone. I also feel that some sources such as giving Wilhelm Steinitz quote of pure breeding have an agenda that is undesirable for an encylcopedia.Tetron76 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for recognizing this and your apology is accepted. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Johann_L%C3%B6wenthal
Can soemone help me out here the dates given his wikipedia dates are wrong 1810-1876. he has recorded games until much later. I have a book that doesn't mention that it is a reprint: "Morphy's Games of Chess, 1893, J. Lowenthal, London: John Bell & Sons" although, it only gives him as J. Lowenthal it is unquestionably the Lowenthal of note. Does anyone have source with his dates?Tetron76 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think upon now having read it that the book is a reprint from ~1860 but the game records still seem a contradiction.Tetron76 (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a mistake at chessgames.com. There are certainly dozens of such errors at that site.  Only one game appears with a date after 1867 and a comment on the Tarrasch v. Lowenthal page explains the problem: the game was actually with a different player, S. Lowenthal.  I added a source for the bio dates and places in Johann Löwenthal. Quale (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Chess Championship
Something is very wrong with that article, winners list seems mostly taken from the Indian Chess Championship. I don't have time to look into this, but can someone sort this out? It is an embarrassment to wikipedia :) Voorlandt (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Trimmed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have also gone ahead and moved the article to be consistent with the naming of all the other national chess championships we have. Sjakkalle (Check!)

ChessGames.com deleted
ChessGames.com was deleted today. I didn't see an AfD. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was speedy deleted according to criteria G4. The original AFD was apparently WP:Articles for deletion/ChessGames.com.  I don't if there was ever a second AFD, although it shouldn't be too hard to check. Quale (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the deleted article. It was first prodded by RHaworth, then speedy deleted when he realized there already had been an AFD on this article. Looking at the references given, about most of the content is sourced to chessgames.com itself, the exception is an interview of Daniel Freeman by Michael Golubev in the web newspaper Chess Today, I am not sure whether this counts as a reliable source. (Note that I voted to delete in the AFD.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also of relevance is |a Dec 1 2007 DRV. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So is it now inappropriate to link a bio to cg.com as has been customary in a player's 'References' section? Is it also inappropriate to have any notable games linked to cg.com, as they mostly are? If so, then does someone have suitable tools for a mass cleansing operation? Brittle heaven (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope it is still OK to link to chessgames.com. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The deletion of the article has no bearing on its validity as a source or an external link. There is no policy which says that sources must be notable in order to be reliable. --Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was deleted because of the first AFD then it was a mistake. The first AFD went to a deletion review that recreated the article. I think a second AFD is required before deletion. PS I noticed the deleting admin has a talk page discussion on deleting various chess website User_talk:RHaworth Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern is that we have previously sung the virtues of cg.com and effectively granted it sole rights to link from every bio 'refs' and 'notable games' section. This helped us to block all the other attempts at linking miscellaneous chess sites. But if cg.com no longer has any notability, can we still give it preferential treatment? That was my point. It seems to be acting fair we would now have to allow a wide variety of linkages or none at all. The only other possibility is allowing links on a case-by-case merit basis. There is a danger that this will lead to many difficult and time consuming debates. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be good if we had some independent sources for the notability of chessgames.com. I personally think it is good.  I have ChessBase 9, which has many more games, but ChessBase includes a lot of games to increase the number.  ChessGames is selective (and available online).  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

ChessGames.com has been restored. The article could definitely use some attention. As both Bubba73 and the admin who deleted it point out, it really needs some independent sources. Quale (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There are passing references in Newspapers ie
 * Grischuk Retains Lead at Linares; Wang Goes Hunting, Gambit New York Times, Dylan LOEB McClain, 3 March  2009,


 * Chess:The calculations of Vishy Anand, The Guardian, Ronan Bennet and Daniel King, 8 February 2011,


 * Chess, Leonard Barden, The Guardian, 8 November 2008,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.170.169.2 (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Chess websites poorly sourced
A discussion of what to do with ChessGames.com(recently restored), Chess.com(recently PRODded) and 365Chess.com(Currently deleted) is required. All three are lacking quality independent sources at present and candidates for deletion. I am tempted to AFD them but some input and direction is welcome. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I don't know any of the needed sources. Perhaps there is an article about online chess sites in a magazine??  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/crosswords/chess/14chess.html, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2007/04/02/1175366140638.html and 'Chess for dummies' page 343 mention a few sites, all are somewhat trival. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Mammoth Book of Chess has a chapter about online chess. The second edition (1997) has a brief entry for chess.com.  I don't have the new edition, but it may have more.  I can check in a few days.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There are also books like Chess On The Web by Sarah Hurst - such books, now somewhat old, will be very cheap on Amazon (used sellers) or on eBay. I will have a look through my old chess mags for an article. I can remember seeing round-up reviews of chess web sites in the past, but finding them will be a tricky task. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The current edition of The Mammoth Book of Chess very likely will act as a reference. I have the first two editions, but not this one.  A couple of weeks ago our local bookstore had it, but I checked today and it is gone.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If there could be problems establishing notability it might be worth creating an article called chess websites or List of chess websites. Envisaging a short transcluded section for main sites and a list for the others. This means that in cases where the sources may or may not be there information won't be lost.Tetron76 (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Chessbase.com has quite a few mentions in RS and the few that I gave above but it is a real struggle to find sources for chess.com including google scholar or 365chess.com. Looking through Category:Chess websites I think that there are going to many issues beyond those mentioned. Even the ones that have refs are far from bulletproof. As someone who doesn't use chess websites, it would be useful to know if any of them have characteristics that make them unique. The awards for chess websites seem to be highly limited: i.e. ECF appears to give their award only for best club website and the 2010 chess journalism award for website went to USCF


 * The guardian chess column (printed weekly) has regular passing mentions to websites as it is about someone improving their game but none for chess.com.Tetron76 (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for creation world championships
Minor point I was looking up about the chess960 world championships and it is noticeable the key sites are very careful not to call it this. There appears to be a "Chess960 Rapid World Championship" but having some experience of this - it would mean that the organiser's either cannot call the event "Chess960 World Championships" due to someone else holding the legal rights or because they are highly reluctant to call their event this. Therefore the suggested article title on WikiProject_Chess would be wrong and there may be a minor event of this name.Tetron76 (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop using Chessmetrics ratings in wikipedia articles before it kills again
We've discussed Chessmetrics ratings on these pages before. I used to think that they were helpful to give some comparison of players' strengths in the period before official FIDE ratings, but I'm beginning to think their use is a menace to modern era chess biographies. Take this from Helmut Pfleger, for example:


 * Chess strength
 * According to Chessmetrics, at his peak in January 1976 Pfleger's play was equivalent to a rating of 2656, and he was ranked number 36 in the world. His best single performance was at Amsterdam (IBM), 1978, where he scored 7.5 of 13 possible points (58%) against 2655-rated opposition, for a performance rating of 2687. In the April 2009 FIDE list, he has an Elo rating of 2477, although he has been virtually inactive since 1990.

FIDE had official ratings in 1976, and Chessmetrics ratings are in no way "equivalent" to FIDE ratings. Pfleger's actual rating in January 1976 was 2545 (you can look up his FIDE rating history from 1972 through 2001 at Olimpbase, which also has scans of old Chess Informants where the FIDE ratings lists were published). By some miracle he actually was ranked 33–36 at that time. The 2656 rating equivalent claim is rather astounding to me, since the only two higher ratings in January 1976 were Karpov at 2695 followed by Korchnoi at 2670. Petrosian, Polugaevsky, Spassky, Larsen, and Portisch follow with ratings from 2635 to 2625, all below the "equivalent" rating we give in our article. A 2656 FIDE rating would actually rank third in January 1976.

My request is that editors not use chessmetrics ratings in biographies of players who were strongest after official FIDE ratings came into use (1972). The chessmetrics site can still be useful because it has a wealth of tournament results, but Chessmetrics ratings are not equivalent to FIDE ratings and we should never claim this without a reliable source to back it up. Informally I'd say that chessmetrics ratings tend to be 50 to 150 points higher than FIDE ratings, but this seems to vary over the years and perhaps by where the rating falls (middle or upper) in the range of ratings. Quale (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Castling article
Castling has been under attack by IP users for the last few days and they are at it again. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We may want to request semi-protection on castling and several other articles. This foolishness is a waste of time, and it's hard for me to understand why the anonymous vandals don't have anything better to do. Quale (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought about that. I think it meets the criteria for semi-protection, but I'm not sure.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The page is now semi-protected (IP users can't edit it). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Way over the top to semi-protected that page in my opinion. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't do it, request it, or suggest it. But I think it is good.  I think every Wikipedia article should be semi-protected.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Alerts
"Article Alerts" has been updated and is working again!! This very useful utility automatically lists project articles that are up for deletion, etc. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On this day...
The main page currently says the above in the 'On this day' section. As you may know it's not true as Kasparov lost a game in 1996. I've recommend on the talk page that the wording it amended to: Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1997 – Deep Blue became the first computer to defeat a world chess champion, when it bested Garry Kasparov in six games.
 * 1997 – Deep Blue became the first chess computer to beat a world chess champion in a chess match, when it defeated Garry Kasparov in six games.
 * I like your proposal, please feel free to go ahead. SyG (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was on the main page. I have no access to amend protected pages. It got amended after about 12 hours, still that means the main page had original research on it for much of the day. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't WP:OR. At most it was misleading or ambiguous wording.  Even in the most strict interpretation it would be a mistake rather than Original Research.  Mistakes just get corrected because they fail WP:V.  Quale (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Polgar-Kasparov RfC
There is considerable mention of Kasparov in the Judit Polgar article. To give the reader a more complete understanding of Polgar's achievements I suggest we include a section on her lifetime scores against other top players.

I was reading the article about Reuben Fine, a player I did not know about earlier. The most informative section in the article was the one title "Lifetime scores against top players". I suggest we have a similar section for Polgar.

There has been resistance to my including Polgar's lifetime records in the article, with the claim that I am "trying to make her look bad". My point is that information should not be excluded on the basis of either it making the subject look good OR bad. If it is factual and informative, it should be included.

I think for consistency: 1) We should have a section of lifetime records for both Polgar and Fine. OR 2) We should delete the section of lifetime records for Fine, if one is also not written for Polgar.

Looking forward to your comments.

Cheers,

Nevadaone (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's good to post this here to get more participants, but if you are interested in including lifetime records only in Judit Polgár, you should create a new section in Talk:Judit Polgár for this. (If that's the case then I'd say your motives are pretty transparent.)  If you are arguing that every chess bio should include lifetime records or none of them should then this is the best place for the discussion.  That suggestion would at least be logically consistent, unless you think Fine and Polgár share some particular connection not found in other chess bio.  Quale (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I would say that we should have lifetime record sections for all top players, that is consistent with the reasoning in my original post. It is an unconvincing argument to say that lifetime records are important for some top players and not important for other top players. The section on Rueben has his record against about 20 top players of his time. Nevadaone (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no special link to Reuben Fine here. Many articles go down this route of lifetime match-ups versus elite players of the day; the George Alan Thomas article speaks of his good results against certain players and then, quite rightly, restores the balance by pointing out how he was much less fortunate against others. Mikhail Chigorin is compared to some of his contemporaries and I'm guessing this is to show why he was a credible challenger to Steinitz. Most, if not all of these articles are justified in this approach, because there is a good reason for going there. It may relate to a lifelong rivalry over who was best, or a feeling that the player was potentially stronger than an overview of his/her results suggest. They may have been regarded as one of the strongest not to have won the world championship - like Keres, Bronstein, Larsen and even Reuben Fine - in which case these highlighted results may help to build a case. In Polgar's case, is there something that needs to be demonstrated that world ranking and Elo rating fail to convey? Has some aspect of Polgar's elite match-ups been the focus of a notable article or a passage in a book? Does she have an exemplary record against Kasparov/Kramnik/Anand and company? Not ringing any bells with me - in fact, I find myself wondering if a record of her encounters against other leading women players would be more to the point. As things stand, I'd need a lot more convincing that these changes were merited. Brittle heaven (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Brittle wrote "In Polgar's case, is there something that needs to be demonstrated that world ranking and Elo rating fail to convey?" Yes, the thing that "needs to be demonstrated" is how she fared over the long run against elite players. For example, it is quite interesting and important information that she has a +12 =5 -3 record with Nigel Short, while having a +14 =19 -20 record against Karpov. Without such information it is quite impossible to judge her achievements. The one thing that I am consistently seeing is that fans of Polgar are against her record against top competition being publicized. Nevadaone (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That'll be right. I don't agree with your suggestion, so I must be a Polgar fan who wants to maintain a shroud of secrecy over her results. All very amusing, but seriously, she is/was Short's bogey player. Does that tell us anything much on its own? I'm not so sure. Short may have a poor record against women for psychological reasons, or Polgar may have a style that reacts well to Short's game, yet adapts less well to positional shuffling of the Karpov variety. Are any of these theories helpful? Geller had a plus score against Fischer - does it mean he was a better player? Results can be random in isolation - and when you broaden them out, you'll no doubt find find she won some and she lost some, the detail of which is already neatly summarised by her rating and world ranking data. I still go back to whether you have something concrete you want to demonstrate, or are just wanting to attach for the sake of it. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "whether you have something concrete you want to demonstrate, or are just wanting to attach for the sake of it" That is an interesting criteria for what is to be included in Wiki. Nevadaone (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the players that have that comparison to the top players of the day were: (1) among the very top players of the time, (2) were before the era of contemporary ratings/rankings, and (3) compared reasonably well (or better) against the top players. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This entire discussion gets more and more absurd. First we have Bubba claiming that because it was mentioned that Kasparov was a former Champion, therefore the reader would understand that he was "better" than Polgar, and therefore there would be nothing added by lifetime records. Now we have him come up with 3 criteria that he just made up. Wiki is not supposed to function according to criteria that editors think up because it helps them keep information they don't like from the reader.

The fact of the matter is that against undisputed Champions Polgar has a lifetime record of 1-12 against Kasparov, 1-20 against Kramnik, 10-28 against Anand, and 14-20 against Karpov. This information is very revealing about her chess career. To have won 26 games against this lot is very creditable, but it does show she was not in their level by the number of losses. However maybe 5 to 7 editors who are very active on this topic seem terrified of this information being included on Polgar's page. Instead there are sentences listing the names of the champions they have beaten.

These editors seem to have no problem with a bunch of insignificant information in the article like: 1) Short and Polgar offering to wear gloves 2) Karpov finishing 3rd in VAM Chess 3) Minutiae of a game against Grischuk in which he was up 2 pawns and so on and so forth, the list is quite endless. However when the question of Polgar's lifetime record comes up, we have editors asking questions like "something concrete you want to demonstrate, or are just wanting to attach for the sake of it"?

Nobody here is a fool, we all realize what is going on, and it is time for me to quit. While it is kind of amusing to see the efforts of editors to justify their attempts at censoring information they do not like, I tire of this game and there are more important matters in my real life that I would like to spend my time on. This is what I propose to do. I will add the information to the article. If someone wishes to delete it, fine. At least there will be a record that the information was removed. I will not pursue this matter further.

Cheers,

Nevadaone (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * When it was disputed that the number of players who have defeated Kasparov is not a "small number", I thought the concern had merit and that we could find a better wording. I think that was done, but of course you weren't satisfied.  I still find it very revealing of your motives that you have a burning desire to include unflattering career record totals in Judit Polgár but show a complete lack of interest in the same in any other chess biography.  I think it was I not Bubba73 who said that no reader will have any trouble comparing the chess strength of Polgar and Kasparov given the information that was in Wikipedia.  I still maintain that is true and find your claim to the contrary to be utterly incredible, even foolish.  Since "nobody here is a fool", I don't think you really believe that readers will be confused either.
 * The three criteria that you claim were "just made up" are an observation of what the chess biographies containing lifetime record information have in common. The criteria may be inaccurate or incomplete, but they aren't "just made up".  I think they are accurate, but incomplete.  I'll add another criterion for you: lifetime records are usually found only in biographies of chess players who are dead or retired.  Part of the reason is criterion 2 – lifetime records are included more often for players whose peak occurred before Elo ratings were introduced – but there are also practical reasons to not include these statistics in bios of active players.  First, it's too much work to keep them up to date, requiring constant updates to the page, and second, they can be too hard to reliably source.  Often Chessgames.com is used for this purpose as you did, but unfortunately it isn't really a reliable source for this kind of information.  It would be very nice if we did have a reliable source for this kind of career information, but usually we don't.  I'm sure we have lifetime record information in some chess bios that isn't really sourced well enough, which is one of many things that we should fix.  But if you're willing to move on I think that's fine, as I don't think we're likely to make any headway short of getting outside opinions from an RFC.  I don't fear that possibility, but I never look forward to any drawn out dispute resolution processes either.  Quale (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

chess photos being removed
Several chess photos have been removed from articles and are subject to being deleted. The editor says that they don't have a "fair use rationale". If these photos are to remain, they probably need a better "rationale". These are the ones I know about:
 * File:FilipAndTal.jpg
 * File:Filip02.jpg
 * File:Reshevsky1960.jpg
 * File:Reshevsky&Fischer.jpg
 * File:ReginaFischer.jpg
 * File:SpasskyFischer1972color.jpg
 * File:PetrosianFischer1971cropped.jpg
 * File:FischerSpasskyShakeHands.jpg
 * File:SpasskyFisher1972b.jpg
 * File:KaspyKarpov.jpg
 * File:PetrosianFischer1958.jpg
 * File:TalBot1960.jpg
 * File:SpasskyFischer1972.jpg
 * File:Tal1971.jpg
 * File:EuweBotvinnik.jpg

Filip02.jpg is under AfD will probably survive. FilipAndTal.jpg is under also under AfD. The rest will be deleted in about six days unless they can be saved. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Better fair use: For wording look at album and song covers because nearly all of them are fair use, i.e File:Album Cover-The Fame.jpg. With sections like Low resolution? 'Yes' is not enough. Spell it out, i.e The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification of the players but lower resolution than the original photo. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable for use on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original. Read also WP:NFCC. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Recognition
In the third edition of The Mammoth Book of Chess (2009), on page 419, Graham Burgess says "It is also worth mentioning that Wikipedia's chess pages have had some solid work put into them ... there are individual pages for many aspects of chess and individual players. " Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fantastic ! Some sort of circle is finalised, now that written books start to talk about chess on Wikipedia, and not the only other way round ! SyG (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Peter Winston
Peter Winston needs a good source. I know at least 2 or 3 editors have the Chess Life CDs, which cover that period. Is there any information in there that can be used as a source for the article? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I worked on this some. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Reserve tempo and spare tempo
Are "reserve tempo" and "spare tempo" the same or different? I've added a section for each to tempo (chess), with different sources (relating to jing and pawn endgames). The example for reserve tempo involves the option of moving a pawn on the second rank either one or two squares. The example for spare tempo involves the total number of pawn moves. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Reshevsky featured image
Great picture and public domain. We could crop some of the people in the picture if we can work out who they are. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The other people are probably not famous chess players. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Picture's name is misleading. I guess the event was a simultaneous display in a Navy Academy or something.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is the New York Times that is saying chess masters, remember of course there was no official chess masters at that time and it was more of a term referring to the expert players of the day. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is probably a chess club - see the demo boards on the wall. I doubt that at age 8 he would have been able to beat masters in a simul.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Game from the event, http://chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1610005 Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Black has no other games at ChessGames.com and none in my copy of ChessBase, so I doubt he was a master in the usual sense. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement at rules of chess
There is a disagreement at rules of chess, if someone could give a third opinion. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the problems have been resolved but there are still discussions over the last paragraph of the Rules of chess section. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am considering just going for a big rollback to the version of, say, 27th June i.e. just before all those massive non-priorly-discussed-on-the-talk-page edits occurred. Please tell me if that makes sense or if it is a bit too "despotic". SyG (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Right now the page is protected from any editing. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to delete chess notation template
Someone has proposed that the chess notation template be deleted. Go here to express your opinion on this. Krakatoa (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is definitely needed in one form or another. What we have is a lot better than linking in the text.  Someone mendioned the side box, but I couldn't see an example of how it works.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The template was kept, but there was discussion about changing it to a sidebox. I don't know how the sidebox works or what it looks like. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fiction Short Story "Von Goom's Gambit"
Should the story "Von Goom's Gambit" (by Victor Contoski ) be added to Wikipedia either by itself or as part of a page on Chess related fiction such as "The Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes"? Naraht (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Macclesfield Chess Club
Should Macclesfield Chess Club be deleted? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but old chess clubs often have an interesting history which independent sources may have covered. In this case however, 95% of the article seems to be about its founder rather than the club. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No Stress Chess
Should No Stress Chess be deleted? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly, in this case yes. The entire article looked like an advertisement ("This game is a helpful way to learn or teach others how to play the classic game chess", etc.) and I have deleted it according to WP:CSD. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

new "chess notation"
Editor Ihardlythinkso has changed the "chess notation" tag to floating on Fool's mate and chess variant. I like this idea in general. A problem though, is that the "float" means that it will cover up something else on the screen in that location. For instance, on Fool's mate it covers up the top part of the first diagram on my system.

I could use WP:AWB to change all of the old "chess notation" tags to the new float format, but the problem with doing this automatically is that the parameters to float have to be specified and it will cover up some things unless someone goes through to check/change them. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

'Update - someone has made a change to the "chess notation" tag so that it looks like the "float" box, but it works fine! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Bubba, what change do you mean? (The tag format looks the same to me now, as when announced.)  There seem to be no options where the tag can go.  Forcing to the top-right can spoil appearance of an article having lead image adacent to the text lead.  ("Important" things go on top.  The notation tag can never be as important as the lead, including lead image.)  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the announcement of the change. I noticed it this morning and that is the change I'm talking about.  It would be better if the position can be controlled, but with the FLOAT it can be on top of something else.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Float is all I could find to move the darn thing. To blindly force top-right position, pushing lead image down, does disservice to all articles with lead image adjacent-parallel to lead text.  (The tag assumes a position of prominence above the image, when it is only an "FYI".  If former top-left location is off limits, maybe it's best attached or part of the Contents summary box?  Discussion was whether to retain the tag.  Was there any discussion on implementation of a new tag?  How something is implemented/executed, is oftentimes of even more importance than the thing itself.  Is this one programmer's whim, affecting a great number of article leads?  Bad.  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, but that is going to take editing each one that needs to be changed. To the right of the table of contents would be a good place, or in the first section to use notation in the biographies.  There was discussion of using a sidebox but I couldn't get any info on how it worked.  I don't know how it is different from this one.  I don't have any idea of how to change it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You can place the chess notation tag, except that it always goes to the right. So it can go in a section, etc.  If you list it after an image, it will go below that image.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Template:chess notation does use a side box now (specifically it is implemented using Template:side box). Because this change was made to the template, it automatically applies to all uses, not just the couple pages mentioned above.  I think it looks pretty good and I haven't seen any problems with it overlapping anything else on the page.  If anyone finds that it doesn't work well on a particular page, note that specific page here and we can take a look at it to see what can be done.  I don't find it pushing the lead image down to be objectionable on a desktop browser, but perhaps it would be worse on a mobile device.  Quale (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's all personal preference, but I prefer to see it below the lead image rather than above. It just looks a bit unbalanced having the lead image bumped down. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is treated like any image. Usually we have put the tag at the very top, but stalemate is an example of where it is below the lead image.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I mistakely thought it always forced to top, didn't test it as just another image. Stalemate looks good.  My oversight; my apology.  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike an image however, there's no way to shift it to the left instead of the right (is there?). For e.g. in Scholar's mate, if it were like an image and shiftable to left column, it could appear after the lead text and before the Contents box.  (For sure the tag needs to occur early, and that is sufficiently early.  There's no doubt about it being noticable, due to its black-white checkered icon.)


 * So is there any way the tag can be optioned to shift to left column, like images can? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be a way for that, but I'm not sure. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is such a parameter in Template:side box, but it isn't exposed in Template:chess notation. It should be pretty easy to add an optional postion parameter to the template if desired. Quale (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank u, Quale! Yes, I did a little reading & was able to test in template/sandbox.  I added 'pos=' parm option to template 'chess notation'.  Updated Scholar's mate and Alice chess accordingly.  (Happy!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Quale, could you help me understand browser issue you referred to, using break|2? (Was using it to space down one, prior to notation tag when |opt=left.)  Bubba doesn't like the increase in vertical space between lead and body it causes (partially compensated when pushed-down text finds new space under a long lead photo or infobox resulting in net decrease in lines, but usually not enough to equal the tag itself and spacing down one), but I think you mean something else.  Meanwhile, I've discontined using break|-anything- in conjunction w/ the notation tag.  Ok,  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You can still use it if you like, as I'm hardly infallible. AFAICS, the effect break values larger than 2 have is intimately dependent on the width of the browser window. How do you know whether to use ,  or whatever?  I think the idea with the larger break values is that the lead image floated right will interfere with the first section header a bit.  Normally we might use

to fix this, but that seems to interact badly with the TOC. Visually it might be better if the notation box could be floated to the right of the TOC (say to the middle), as this is currently dead space. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of the breaks. If people think they are useful, I'll leave them alone. Maybe a better solution would be to remove the image from the notation box and make it wider but not as tall, say only a single line. This would eat less vertical space in the articles. Quale (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * On 3 or 4 of the articles, I took out the BREAK and moved the notation box from the left to the right. I did this in cases where putting it on the left caused more white space.  Putting it on the right put it in the white space to the side of the table of contents.  I did this to make better use of the space (at least on my screen).  And I've tried that Clear as Quayle talks about, and it does mess it up. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with clear is that the TOC is inserted after the clear rather than before. (That is to say, immediately before the first section header, which is after the clear.)  It should be possible to fix this by explicitly placing the TOC before the clear using a sequence like


 * Quale (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thx for feedbacks. Yes, in all cases where I used break|>2, it was because I didn't know how to use

to push space down for an uninterrupted next section head. (Now I do, even w/ TTOC - thx!) That takes extra vertical space, but was thinking it made the all-important article first page look cleaner. When I used break|2 though, it was for a different purpose ... for a line of spaces ("margin") below the lead text, so it could breathe and not crowd/squeeze the lead text when notation|pos=left. (But, I see that the default for TOC in all WP articles is to bump it up against the last line of lead text, so my idea about margin esthetic isn't anything near the norm and fights upstream.) If break|2 is omitted, Bubba is still right: the notation tag itself always uses more vertical space between last line of lead text and first line of section text. (On my screen it measures ~.6" more vertical space. I personally don't think that it means  notation|pos=left should never be used, there could be times the extra .6" vertical space buys a much cleaner look compared to notation tag below the lead image at right.)


 * I've been trying to live w/ the new tag. Rather than remove the icon (which steals the show when tag is topmost, but seems to be a good eye-catcher when tag is moved down or left), I think you're right, the ideal place for tag is right-of-TOC (current dead space; plus the tag is "orientation info" so appropriate w/ the TOC; I see Bubba agrees, too).  But two Qs: 1) the width of TOC seems to be the max article title width (unpredictable), could that be a prob? 2) could it even be done (a WP coder who'd entertain such a request)?  Ok,  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The width of the TOC does depend on the longest section title, but I don't know of any that are long enough to cause a problem. And if there are, the section title should probably be shortened anyway.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Update!: After experimenting I found a way to utilize the dead space!  Please take a look at Millennium 3D Chess, and let me know what you think.  (The trick was using , for which there is list of considerations when using it, at WP:TOC.  I'm not sure ... are they harmless for our application?)  Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * good. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 12:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When utilizing the dead space for the tag, it seems is best, because *no* break causes the tag to squeeze the lead text even more than the TOC does, and  wastes vertical space unnecessarily when the TOC is hidden.  Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks nice. When I suggested using the space to the right of the TOC, it wasn't a test—I didn't know how it could be done.  The TOCleft, break, chess notation, clearleft bit is complicated enough that it might be good to encapsulate the magic inside Template:chess notation.  Maybe a tocleft parameter could be added or another value for the pos parameter could be used to turn this on.  This might help alleviate a minor concern I have.  If this complicated stuff is put in 600 articles then a future change to how TOCs are displayed (something not under our control) could wreck the careful layout and require changes to many pages.  Putting the tricky stuff in the template means it can be tweaked in one spot if it becomes necessary.  We made use of this with Template:fide.  A few years ago when FIDE reorganized their website the urls for the player cards changed a bit. Fortunately we were able to adjust the template and didn't have to change every article that used it. Quale (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems like a good idea. (I'll work it in sandbox.)  It has advantage too, that the explicit order won't get inadvertently altered/removed thru some edit.  Another advantage of the sequence - it allows TOC placement without need of a header, which gives more flexibility for "right" TOC placement (as in WP doc on  ).  When a TOC isn't auto-generated because too few headers, the sequence creates a small TOC, and that adds vertical dimension with limited benefit.  But I think it can be useful too, and maybe worth the vertical space or nuisance of a close-to-useless TOC.  (Why?  Because I think the notation tag really does belong over in the 'TOC area', and it looks strange when all by itself, and looks normal when paired with a small TOC.  Both TOC and tag belong toward top of article, and I guess what I'm saying is, how about keeping them together, and when no TOC generated, generate a small/relatively useless one, just so we don't have to go searching for some alternate [and always inferior] place to stick the notation tag.  That said, I'm wondering about the utility of position-right placement of the notation tag at all.  I'm wondering if it could be dispensed with!?  [Above the lead image is bad, and I think below lead image isn't as appropriate as when paired with the TOC, even if a generated tiny TOC.  I think the lead image always looks best if the notation tag is away from it, not associated, even if the lead image is a diagram.  Because the notation tag is just an "FYI" and not related to the subj of the article.  A solitary lead image stands more powerful to assert itself.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * *Update*! Thx Quale, for your helpful hints.  (It allowed me to find the right WP doc in order to code.  It's funny ... reading magicwords etc., it didn't dawn on me the 'strings' being talked about could just be template code! Ha ha. After that it was easy!)
 * Anyway, it's working:  works the same as before, and   (or default w/ no  ) works the same as before.  The new parm (your suggestion)   generates the "sequence of four" already discussed.  (I have it on one article already: Four Knights Game.)
 * (Please note, anyone who might use, I've run into a couple articles, both having consecutive right-placed images, and the sequence of four doesn't work the same in those cases without an adjustment.  So for similar articles, they'll have be treated individually, and I doubt they'll be able to use  .  An example of this is article Alice Chess.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the notation tag–TOC association in the same area is logical, and also looks good. I think it works for all types of articles – whether they're bio, opening, or variant.  (Could you please take a look at the following:  bio examples Ashot Nadanian, Aron Nimzowitsch; opening examples Four Knight's Game, Two Knights Defense; variant example Alice chess.)


 * Each article has slightly different results when putting notation tag with TOC, but in general I think it works best for following reasons: 1) The notation tag has nothing to do with, is not related or associated in any way with, the content of the lead image/infobox/biobox, which is the subject of the article. 2) The notation tag is information about interpreting the article as a whole, and not about what's in the lead image/infobox/biobox. 3) I think the lead image looks better, if it stands alone, without something unrelated next to it (for example again, look at bio article Ashot Nadanian - what on earth would be the benefit or sense [intellectually or esthetically] to put the notation tag near him or under his pic?  If the tag were placed under his pic, it would detract!  Because it has nothing to do with him, adds nothing about him, and can only take away from the strong display of the subject - his pic.)  4) The notation tag DOES belong with the TOC, since they're both "orientation/FYI" infos.


 * Philcha has reverted the notation tag relocations in articles Emanuel Lasker, Alexander Alekhine, and Wilhelm Steinitz. I don't believe the change was good, and I'd be interested in knowing the basis for his reverts.  In two of them (Alekhine and Steinitz) if you bring up Philcha's version and click "hide" for the TOC, the notation tag ends up sandwiched between two photos, which seems to me pointless and unesthetic also.  So, I don't know what Philcha's basis for reverting was.  (I'd hate to hazard a guess, I'd prefer to know.)


 * Perhaps the tag discussion/topic has outgrown its place here!? Before coding and implementing a new template, should there be a consensus in the Chess Project about tag location in general?  (There are exceptions to anything of course: specific articles can have their own special considerations.  But when are exceptions, and when are general disagreements re placement?  I assume Pilcha's reverts reflect the latter.)  Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, Philcha found it worth his time, to revert the notation tag relocations, without explanation. (Apparently the Edit summary box doesn't require a reason, just a description of the change made.  How wonderful.)  If there's Talk on this, doesn't it belong here, or an equivalent generalized place, and not on specific articles?  (Otherwise, discussions on Talk could get very redundant.  E.g., should I invite Philcha to the Talk pages of the three individual articles?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You should ask him on his talk page. You can point him to this discussion and he may choose to reply here, or he might prefer to remain on your user talk pages.  It's frustrating to have edits reverted without understanding why, but if you remain cool you should be able to get an explanation.  You may not agree with the reasoning, but it's better to talk about this kind of thing. Quale (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * New topic: I made a change to the template in attempt to soften the chessboard image (changing black & white squares to gray & white squares). Can I get feedback if members like this change or not?  Any article displaying the tag will show it.


 * On Template talk:Algebraic notation, Adpete said "the little chessboard makes the hatnote ... obtrusive and annoying". So maybe this softens the image and makes less annoying, while still being an adequate eye-catcher.  (If members don't like, easy to change back w/ revert to the template edit, of course.)  Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My main objection is in chess biographies, where algebraic notation is a very, very minor portion of the article and so trumpeting algebraic notation at the start is (in my opinion) unnecessary and annoying. Far better to have a short note where the notation is actually used. Otherwise you can get a situation like Wilhelm Steinitz where the template is as prominent as the entire table of contents but, as far as I can see, there is not a single use of algebaic notation in the entire article! Adpete (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting point. I think in Wilhelm Steinitz algebraic notation is currently only used in the hidden caption to the von Bardeleben brilliancy.  Changing the colors of the chessboard doesn't really soften the side box in my opinion.  To do that it really needs to be made smaller, because currently it's pretty big and chunky.  Of course that's the nature of a side box, so overall I think I preferred it as a hatnote.  Even so, it isn't a big concern to me despite my frequent participation in this discussion.  Quale (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My involvement has been to mitigate the side box Thumperward created, thru placement options, and toning down the chessboard symbol so not so glaring. (I've no opinion hatenote vs side box, or what symbol if any in the side box.)  Thumperward told his intention to change to side box in the TfD, nobody really opposed, so he went ahead.  The articles vary a lot, it's hard to come up with a general plan for the algebraic message, and a lot easier to pick one article and decide what might be best for it.  (For example a solution to "include a line of text where the notation is used" sounds simple enough, but won't be clear at all when applying to a diversity of articles.  Notation can occur anywhere and everywhere, extensively or just single square/move references, at article bottom, in the body, in lead, or a mix.)  The hatnote solution is a generalized solution, but there was also criticism of it by an outside editor based on the large amount of separation between the algebraic message and a game at bottom of an article. I think a generalized best plan might be solvable but represents a problem hard to solve.  Meanwhile, is Wilhelm Steinitz article sufficiently good w/o a notation message, when moves display from the diagram box after clicking "show"?  If not, what is best solution for that article?  (And when a solution is determined, it is only a single article, the same solution may not apply well, except for only it and a few others.  Meanwhile, there are hundreds of articles, maybe each with their own particular need re what's best.) Is what is desired a generalized solution?  Or tailored per article?  (I think it's an important division point.) Or generalized, except when that doesn't work well, then tailored instead? (Will patterns show up when tailoring? How many? Will one "generalized" solution end up being enough?  Or two?) A tough problem! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Made a change to get rid of chessboard image, and reduce point size. Check out Wilhelm Steinitz or any other article. (Less obtrusive?  Normal point size better?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Made a change to shorten the Side box, too. (Good? No?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * When the notation tag was standardized to be at the top, I thought it should be that way in biographies too. But now the notation box is normally to the side of the table of contents, which I like.  But it may be a good idea to put the notation box in the first section to use notation in biographies (usually "notable games" section).  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at all BLPs I touched to-date, and update here what patterns are. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Bubba, could you join Adpete & me at Template talk:Algebraic notation? Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

recent edits on some pages
One new editor made major changes to chess, chess opening, and chess endgame. Some members of this project feel that many of the changes to the first two articles made them worse. Would someone look at the recent major changes to chess endgame to evaluate them? Thank you. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There were also drastic changes to List of chess games quite recently. These were very good (better prose) on the face of it, but on closer inspection, I believe the editor has added some games of his own choosing and dismissed some that he didn't like. Needs a review. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is way too much detail in the lead of chess now. I would revert all recent edits. Adpete (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Right - the lead section should be a concise overview of no more than four paragraphs wp:LEAD. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * An appropriate response would be to WP:PRESERVE and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, not simply revert and be WP:BITEy to the editor new to the chess articles because the edit wording is to flowery or poorly written. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think undoing the edits was an appropriate response and the right way to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. It is possible for a contribution to be so poorly written that it isn't worth saving.  See also WP:BRD. "R" is a key part of that process. Quale (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As you can see by my analysis of his first paragraph on the chess endgame talk page, I didn't see anything worth preserving. It would be better to fix the original if there are problems.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Women's GP
FIDE Women's Grand Prix 2011–2012. I started the article as tourney one is under way. Have a look. -Koppapa (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * When adding a new chess article, please put the project tag on the talk page and list it in index of chess articles. I've done that for this one.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We need more and better coverage of current events in chess, and also I think better coverage of women's chess. Quale (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I created the 2012 and 13 editions now. They lacks some more references maybe. Will add some. -Koppapa (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Morphy's mental state
There has been a little discussion about Paul Morphy's mental state at Talk:Paul Morphy. Currently the article doesn't say much about this, but it deserves a mention. Does anyone here have any reliable sources bearing on this that they would be willing to use to improve the article? Quale (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Morphy's Games of Chess By Philip Walsingham Sergeant, page 27-32. Read the book on Google. Explains it well. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Broadly matching accounts in Schonberg (Grandmasters of Chess), Horowitz (From Morphy to Fischer) and Hartston (Guinness Book of Chess Grandmasters) if anyone has access to those texts. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Mikhail Rytshagov
This article name has just been changed to Mihhail Rotsagov, give or take a few pronunciation marks, but I have not seen it spelled this way in English language texts. FIDE use Mikhail Rychagov, which I have seen occasionally and would regard as the main alternative. I can appreciate this is the Estonian version and it appears at Polish wiki and (the also Polish) Olimpbase, but shouldn't we stick with the most popular version in the English language or am I now behind the times? Brittle heaven (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. We have at least one prolific editor (also Polish, I think) who has advocated following Olimpbase spellings on wikipedia.  That isn't a good idea.  The WP:UE policy controls.  In cases where we can't determine a preferred English spelling because of lack of reliable English language sources, the native spelling should be used if it is in a Latin alphabet.  For modern players the FIDE spelling should be considered strongly, although I would generally make allowance for the technical backwardness of FIDE's database which is simple ASCII.  Diacritics can be used where appropriate if this isn't in conflict with English language sources.  For example, FIDE would always have written Ludek Pachman, but since Luděk Pachman is pretty well represented in English language sources I think this is an appropriate spelling.  This is a trickier question in cases like Peter Leko whose name is usually written without diacritics in English, but exceptions are easy to find.   Quale (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Notation convention
This is copied from BashBrannigan's Talk page:

I wanted to apologize for the mis-correction I introduced. When I read "Fischer's lifetime score in tournament and match games with 5.0-0 was six wins, three draws, and no losses (83.3%)." I took the 5.0-0 to be a score (albeit oddly presented) rather than a move (O-O). Of course, I should have noted that 6+3 didn't add up to 5! A space after the "5." would have helped, but apparently, that isn't the approved style. WHPratt (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't an approved style in WikiProject Chess. I've seen both.  I was also confused by "5.0-0" (interpreting the "5.0" to be some kind of "release number" or some such thing.  I think I looked at it five times at least, puzzled, until finally seeing  it represent a chess move!).  I'd like to see WikiProject Chess adopt like in the Yugoslav publications (i.e., the space).  If we were both confused, it can't be a fluke.  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

--- I think this is no accident, there is a general confusion when "5.0-0" or "5.0-0-0" are written. The discussion on notation convention never reached consensus for consistency. Shouldn't there be a uniform presentation of gamescores across WP articles? For me, I'm used to looking at ECOs and Informats, so I prefer "5. 0-0" (with space). And for a Black move alone: "5... Nf6" (ellipsis immeditatly following the "five", single space before "Nf6"), not anything else. Many games on WP are presented this way already, and I know my preference is the same as many other players and editors. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer that method too, but I think most people prefer to leave out the space in both cases. A uniform style would be best, but it might take a lot of work to change it.  It might can be done with AWB, or someone can write a bot.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me too, that uniformity is best. (What possible reason, to have games and moves presented in two or more different notation conventions across articles?  A "good encyclopedia" would not do that, me thinks.)


 * Isn't WikiProject Chess the place for conventions to be weighed and adopted? (E.g. "White" vs "white".)  Why did the previous notation discussion fizz without reaching a convention to adopt?  (Is it not the time?  What in future would make it a better time?)


 * Perhaps I don't understanding the culture on WP. Is it to wait until someone does apply a bot/AWB and starts making massive changes, then when objections come, discussion follows, consensus is reached, and the Project adopts a new convention-standard for articles?  (Is that what is being waited for?  Someone to start making massive changes?  And if so, what if that never happens?  A hodgepodge of differently presented move and gamescore notations would remain across all articles.  Forever and ever.)


 * If that is the culture, can someone just please tell me. Then *I* can know, too.  (Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)  p.s.  Two people got honestly and innocently confused to a non-trivial degree, over the presentation "5.0-0" in the Bobby Fischer article on Ruy Exchange Var.  So of course IMO I'm against the notation convention where the move immediately follows the period.  It causes confusion, legitimately.  (A good notation convention should never do that.)  Also, the Yugoslav publications (ECO, etc.) use the space; they have a certain universality already, and make a good precident IMO. I'm "fine" with the notation convention without  space; it just seems a decision (Project Chess convention) should be adopted one way or the other.


 * With or without a space "0-0" would occasionally be read as a score not a move. Changing all chess articles to have a space after the move number is NOT possible with WP:AWB because other occurances of numbers followed with periods will occur unrelated to moves. Most people would not notice the difference, even chess players. For example the article First-move advantage in chess appeared on the main page and uses both methods; i.e without spaces(Francisco Vallejo Pons – Kasparov, Moscow 2004) and with spaces(Lev Polugaevsky–Ľubomír Ftáčnik, Lucerne Olympiad 1982) and no one had previously commented or likely noticed! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * SunCreator, I don't see how you can say that ("no one likely notices") – it is a simple guess (presumption) on your part where no data exists. The notation convention used, how chess moves are represented in articles, reflects various tastes, and people sometimes have their strong feeling how moves should be spaced, how many dots, etc. Take a look at this diff: . The user went out of his way to change a move like 1... Nf6 or 1...Nf6 to: 1. ...Nf6.  And in an earlier diff by the same user in the same article, changed 0-0 to O-O. People *do* have opinions and preferences, and go out of their way to "enforce" them thru edits, as you see. (And *that* is why I suggested, that ProjChess should have convention on this sort of thing, just as it does re capitalization on "White" & "Black".)


 * My *own* feeling is that 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 type format is best for analysis or secondary lines which occur in paragraphs, because it eats up the least horizontal space. But that 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 format is better when moves are presented vertically in columns, in section titles, and as captions in move diagrams or openings infoboxes, for clarity and where horizontal space is not such a factor. But my feeling is not really relevant, as I really don't care what the convention is, but simply that there should *be* a convention; some other members have already expressed too before I did, that there should be a ProjChess convention re how moves are presented.


 * I prefer 0-0 versus O-O, contrary to the IP user who made the diff quoted earlier. People *do* have preferences for these things, and express themselves in edits and edit reversals, contrary to what you think or guess. And even when a user does not edit an article to "fix" the notation presentation according to his taste, does not mean he doesn't notice it, or that it isn't an irritant, or that he doesn't notice the haphazard inconsistency within a single article, or that he doesn't notice the haphazard inconsistency between WP articles, and that those things are also not irritants. (It just means, it wasn't a sufficient irritant to cause the reader to go in and edit to set "right". I'm sure if this were measured, of 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 readers/editors who notice and are irritated, there is only one who will actually do something about it. It isn't because the others don't "care" or don't have preference or aren't irritated.  It is about taking action versus taking no action.  For example, in the grocery retail industry, which has put numbers on this sort of thing, 20 customers may be irritated that a certain food product they are looking for is not carried by the store, but in that group of 20, only 1 will go out of his/her way to ask to talk to the manager and suggest the manager order it for offering on the shelves.  That is why a grocery store manager will generally be responsive to a single customer asking for a product he does not currently stock - because the one who spoke up represents the 19 who felt the same but didn't speak up. To presume that because only one person spoke up, the customer's request can be ignored because it represents a single customer only, isn't in the store's best sales interest. They are not motivated to please a single customer, true; but they know the single customer's request represents 19 additional customers also.)


 * It really doesn't matter the convention format ProjChess decides should be convention, but if no convention is decided, or the matter is continued to be thought of as having no importance or "no one notices", there will continue to be diffs where editors do and undo according to their preferred styles, with no one "winning", everyone who is involved wasting their time in the unending diff reversals, and a hodgepodge of different styles throughout *all* WP chess articles where there is no consistency or uniformity (looking haphazard and unprofessional), and where there is no drawback to the goal of havng consistency and uniformity. This could at least be started or begun with a ProjChess convention at least decided and stated.  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's say a convention *is* decided and stated at ProjChess. Since it's clear players/readers/editors exist who have their own preferences, and there are many formats out there, some will be displeased with the convention chosen. That's a given.  But that situation is fine, and unavoidable.  And if there is at least consistency and uniformity within an article, and within all WP chess articles (someday, or heading in that direction at least), then at least the user should/probably would respect it and abide by it – just as they respect and abide by other WP ProjChess article conventions, and WP:MOS guidlines/standards/conventions for all WP articles generally. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Crosstable
There has been a request for a crosstable (chess) article, instead of just the Glossary entry this links to. I'm not sure that this topic is big enough for an article, but the Oxford companion (for example) has an entry. I'm not sure if there is much more to say about it. But it could be made into an article with examples of a Swiss crosstable and a Round Robin crosstable, and the text in the Glossary could be greatly reduced. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If we had enough material (and reliable sources) for it, I think we could have a scoring in chess or chess scoring article. Then scoring in chess could be a section and the crosstable (chess) redirect could be pointed to it.  Chess scoring is a bit confusing when you consider the differences between matches and tournaments, and that we use at least three different ways of writing the same score including +w−l=d, w–l, and scored/total.  There are also matches and tournaments where draws aren't counted to consider.  Such article would also give an opportunity to discuss tie breaking and even briefly explain adjudication.  This has been discussed a bit here at WT:CHESS in the past.  Quale (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * An article like that is probably a good idea. The crosstable entry in the glossary is too long for that article, so it could be moved.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Crosstable could fit nicely in Round-robin tournament I imagine. Scoring in chess seems like a good idea for an article. A number of articles cover bits of that already the Elo rating system article and another(can't figure out which) that talks about problem of grandmaster draws in relation to scoring. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Swiss tournaments also have crosstables. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * really? In the UK we have what maybe called 'tournament tables'(not sure official name) to show a swiss tournament result. The difference is the colours are shown along with opponents number and sometimes accumulative scores(if being used for tie breaker), also swiss has additional pairing cards. Is there an online place where a crosstable used in a swiss is shown? I'm wondering if it's done differently around the world or if the terminology used is different. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Had a look at some, the two could be used from basic same table I guess, although in practice I think they are a different layout. Round robins or all-play-alls as we call them in these parts also have the section blacked out where you can't play yourself. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

example round robin. example swiss tournament chart. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Template for chess problems on WP pages
Hello, I've seen use of the template on at least a couple chess articles ("hide"/"show") featuring problems. I've assumed the template was designed for such a purpose. But I'm being reverted by an editor and one aggressive Admin, at article Susan Polgar, for being contrary to WP:SPOILER using the template for a chess problem. I've added my arguments why I don't think the policy applies, at Talk:Susan Polgar. (Do members think yes or no? Discuss here, or on Polgar Talk?) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see also: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

With continuation at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

At the above RfC, language is (was?) being drafted for possible update to MOS to specifically allow "hide"/"show" for chess problem compositions. That technique is already in use (example, Alekhine's brilliant endgame composition at Alexander Alekhine) in articles, even though I was reverted for using the same technique in Susan Polgar on her little chess problem. The problem is, if the language currently under consideration is drafted, then that presumably will be such restrictive language as to disallow use of "hide"/"show" on chess articles for anything other than composed problems. When there is already use of the technique in several mature articles to show brilliant or difficult game continuations, for example, in Mikhail Botvinnik (two game continuation diagrams), Wilhelm Steinitz (one), and Alexander Alekhine (one game continuation in "Notable chess games" section). What I'm afraid of is, these uses getting the kibosh according to MOS, if the current restrictive policy language is drafted.

(Is my concern a real one? Apparently not, since I've seen no participation by any ChessProject member, in any of the discussion re use of "hide"/"show" on Susan Polgar at Polgar Talk (where one Admin-to-be and another Admin pretty much tried to beat me up on it), or subsequent AN/I, or subsequent AfC.  If that's the case, then great!  But I don't understand it.  [This poses no threat to use of "hide"/"show" for game continuations already in use in mature articles like examples above?!  If somebody would care to explain, I'm surely appreciative – 'cause I get feeling this is a WP "culture thing" again, and I just don't get it.)  Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

p.s. Emanuel Lasker has a "hide"/"show" on a diagram for the Rice Gambit. I presume that would easily get the kibosh, too. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, more feedback from WikiProject Chess participants would be very helpful at the Request for Comment on using Collapse boxes on chess problems. Thanks, First Light (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Update!: There is recently revised, Admin-assisted consensus language at MOS:COLLAPSE permitting "hide/show" use on "chess puzzles" (including problems, endgame studies, brilliant or difficult game continuations, and other puzzles). Happy day! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Algebraic chess notation
I'm not sure where I should post this question, but if White decides to play 6. Ng1-e2 (yes I know 6. f3 makes more sense), in short algebraic notation, do I write 6. Nge2 or 6. Ne2 (because the c3-knight is pinned and can't move?) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ne2. (Nce2 is impossible.)  That's the way it's done! (I'll give my left hand if I'm wrong, and, I play the violin!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You'd better hide your hand, because I've seen both! See Talk:Algebraic notation (chess) where of major 3 sources found, 2 of them (NCO and BCO) disambiguated the illegal move, while MCO-14 didn't. Probably best not to be too dogmatic about it. Adpete (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There's only one right way to specify a move in abbreviated algebraic (just like, there's only one right way to do the same in descriptive notation).  A qualification is given only when not quaifying produces an ambiguous move.


 * Sure, you can find different ways used in published sources. But those are misprints, mistakes, inexact editing by the publisher or publisher's editor who didn't know what he was doing.  If you answer the user from perspective of Wiki-logic, then "right way" is whatever is found in published/reliable sources.  But I wasn't using that logic.  (There is a time to turn off Wiki-logic.  The user wanted to know the right way to notate.  There is a right way.  Published counterexamples mean nothing.  Unless you find a ref which, rather than on the Two-Knight Defence, is about writing in abbreviated algebraic itself.)


 * The offer of sawing my hand off is still on the table (please excuse the disgusting imagery!). ;)   Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Addendum: if Nge2 is specified, it's confusing, because it suggests a qualification was needed to differentiate from a different knight move. That's confusing!  No good notation system ever introduces confusion. (Ever!)  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Addendum 2: Long-hand algebraic would go 6. g1–e2 or 6. Ng1–e2, but, that is long-hand following long-hand requirements.


 * Addendum 3: Of course, there are different flavors using abbreviated, such as specifying "x" (or not) for captures, and "+" (or not) for checks, and "=" (or not) for promotions, and "de" instead of "de5" for a pawn capture. But that's not what's topic here.  Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nce2 is impossible - no doubt, but sometimes (fast chess) illegal is 'allowed'.
 * Chess software also (automatic) notate move as Nce2.--AndrejJ (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The user asked the right way to notate a move. He didn't ask how a miscellaneous piece of software notates it, or how an illegal move is notated. So what's your point? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Phildius defence
There is a new article about a Phildius Defence, but googling that did not give me reliable sources. Would someone have a credible reference for that ?SyG (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No one has found any sources. It has been nominated for deletion/redirection, see Articles for deletion/Phildius Defence.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK thanks Bubba ! SyG (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"piece" meaning "minor piece"
Is there a reference for the use of the word "piece" to mean a minor piece? I checked seven references and found none. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. Quale (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just an observation, but when an annotator says "White wins a piece", that usually means that White has gained a bishop or knight (or two bishops for a knight; or two knights for a bishop). The fact that bishops and knights are routinely traded for each other during games makes this a useful generalization over e.g. "White has won a bishop". If it is a rook that has been won, the annotation usually says "rook", not "piece". Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Right. When someone wins, loses, or sacrifices "a piece", it normally means a minor piece.  But I haven't found a reference for that.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This website's url address indicates that the source is a blog, but to me it looks like a pretty reliable glossary and not a blog entry. The definition of "piece" covers what you are looking for. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  20:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I added that to chess piece. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Potential new article: Arrangement of chess pieces
Hello everyone!

Yesterday I was reading Sunnucks encyclopaedia and found this nice entry! There's a lot to write about it and I started a portuguese version. You can check here the first draft and I'll work for a few days to improve it. So, if someone is interested in a cross-wiki discussion please tell me. Most part of my sources are in english so it will be easier for you guys check and improve your own version. Regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Companion to Chess calls the initial arrangement the "array". My opinion is that if the coverage does not go beyond the rules, then there is not so much need for a separate article beyond what is in the rules of chess article; however if there is some history or otherwise deeper coverage on this, then a separate article may be justifiable. Thank you for your efforts here and on the Portuguese Wikipedia! Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for comment Sjakkalle! I think that's a lot to say for a separate article. First, we could explain chronologically changes in the array: Rook's at elephant place in India, Murray stating that paws and horse position never changed (I think he's stated it's kind of a pattern to identify chess but I'm not sure), Vizir/King position in frontal position to each order and crossed position in chess variants, etc. Plus, we could talk about array in other importants variants like shogi and xiangqi where pieces are placed in the edges, the importance of array to developing of opening theory and what happens in Chess960. Other point that could be mentioned is the introduction of a checkered board by XIII and h1 as white and "queen in her color" motto and what to do if a wrong array is observed during game in a championship. I'm not sure if it's possible get a GA status but it helps to non-players set the board and helps to summarize this subject in chess rules (where by the way I think it's not well covered) and other chess variants articles. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Susan Polgar photos in public domain
Hello everyone!

Good news! (I hope) Susan Polgar left 60 (sixty) pictures in public domain! I checked at commons category and there is just 4 pictures so, I have two guesses: 1) we didn't know and maybe there's something useful to upload at commons. 2) You guys know and there's nothing good to upload. Please check the link at to see if there's something good. I don't have access from my work so I'm dying to know if there's a picture with her sisters! pls, if it is upload it! Regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several we really should get (put them in commons.wikimedia first). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There are photos of Polgar with Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, and Fischer we definitely need, plus Karpov, Kasparov, Spassky, and others that could be useful. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class Review
Just wanted to draw attention to that, since it seems somewhat unwatched. Hi 8 7 8  (Come shout at me!) 04:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that page watched at all? I seem to have still recieved no response at all. I would love it if the article could be reviewed.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 03:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Hi878, sorry for not having answered before. I guess the article you submitted will not attract many reviewers, because this is not really about a chess subject, more about an IT engineer that has built one chess program. I would even go as far as to say that this person is not really notable from a chess point of view, only his invention is. SyG (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He also made a chess variant, Baroque chess; I think that is more why his article is listed in this project.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 14:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps more interest would be shown about Robert Abbott (game designer) over at WikiProject Board and table games. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought of that, but they have no A-Class review.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 22:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe submit for a Peer review? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They don't do A-Class review either. :)  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 22:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a specific reason for an A-class review? An option is WikiProject Biography or WikiProject Biography/Peer review, the article is a biography so it does apply. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just figured that an A-Class review before going near FA would be helpful. WP:BIOs A-Class review has been frozen for quite a while; trust me, this is the only relevant project with one.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 23:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You want a Peer review "Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." for example Peer_review/Rosendale_Theatre/archive1. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the point of having an A-Class review page, then? It seems as though it is a waste of space, if one is just going to be told to go to WP:PR.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 17:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea at one point was to ensure an article was complete and accurate in terms of content by getting knowledgable people from a relevant WikiProject. It's largely feel out of favour except in very active WikiProjects like WP:HISTORY. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Hi878 has a point: our A-class review has no contributor anymore, and was designed at a time when C-class did not exist already. Do we still need a category between GA and FA ? I propose to scrap the A-level for WP:CHESS altogether. SyG (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree a review is not that useful anymore. But the class itself has got two articles in it, what would you do with them (Category:A-Class_chess_articles), designate them as GA which they both are already? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly, they would become GA-class.SyG (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)