Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 33

Possible enhancement to infobox
Template:Infobox chess biography

Most sports infoboxes on Wikipedia (American football, basketball, etc.) have a full-fledged "Career highlights and awards" section that details the awards, tournaments, and championships they've won. The tennis infobox has a section for Grand Slam results, and the soccer infobox has an "Honours" section for the medals a player has won in international competition. The chess infobox, by comparison, is bare-bones and doesn't have room for any accomplishments other than "World Champion". Would it be feasible to add a similar

| highlights=

attribute to the chess infobox that allows for this information? For example, the additional infobox section for Magnus Carlsen could include something like:


 * 3× World Champion (2013, 2014, 2016)
 * 2× World Rapid Champion (2014, 2015)
 * 2× World Blitz Champion (2009, 2014)
 * Candidates Tournament winner (2013)
 * Grand Chess Tour champion (2015)
 * 5× Chess Oscar recipient (2009–2013)
 * Norwegian champion (2006)
 * Highest-ever FIDE rating (May 2014)
 * 29 career wins in super-tournaments
 * 5× TATA Steel winner (2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016)
 * 3× Bilbao Masters winner (2011, 2012, 2016)

etc, etc...

Or an infobox for Anand could include:


 * 5× World Champion (2000F, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012)
 * World Rapid Champion (2003)
 * World Blitz Cup winner (2000)
 * Candidates Tournament winner (1995, 1998F, 2014)
 * 2× FIDE World Cup winner (2000, 2002)
 * 6× Chess Oscar recipient (1997, 1998, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008)
 * 3× Indian champion (1986–1988)
 * 29 career wins in super-tournaments
 * 5× TATA Steel winner (1989, 1998, 2003, 2004, 2006)
 * 3× Linares winner (1998, 2007, 2008)

etc, etc...

in addition to what is already there.

Right now, the 'accomplishments' pages for most top chess players are very haphazard and inconsistent, and this could help with that. Thoughts? 11achitturi (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This does seem like a better approach than the closest thing we have currently (parameters for worldchampion, womensworldchampion, and ICCFworldchampion). A good idea before implementing would be to come to a consensus regarding what "highlights" should be included (i.e. it should be standardized). To illustrate what proposes, I've added an example above (it's just the usual infobox with an added parameter via child infobox). &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 18:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Right, that example looks perfect. As far as standardization, I suppose something like the following:


 * World championships (can use F or C to differentiate between FIDE and lineal during the split-championship era)
 * World rapid/blitz championships (could limit to just the FIDE ones, or include non-FIDE ones like Herceg Novi in 1970, not sure what's the best option here).
 * Candidates' tournament wins
 * World Cup wins
 * Grand Chess Tour/FIDE Grand Prix wins (overall, not individual tournaments)
 * Chess Oscars or other "Player of the Year" awards
 * National championship wins
 * Number of "strong" chess tournament wins - using the same criteria List of strong chess tournaments uses.
 * Chess Olympiad individual medals (this could be another line, or separate entirely).


 * could be used as a template. I don't know if team wins should be included as well, or just individual ones. Others here can add ones I may have forgotten.11achitturi (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh great, another feature adding no new information for us to endlessly edit-war over. Cobblet (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The purpose of an infobox is to provide useful comparative data at-a-glance; they're not meant to add new info. Championships, awards, and achievements are very relevant for sportspersons and in my opinion a summary of them should be included for major chess players like they are for major players of all the other major sports. 11achitturi (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a very good idea.  The categories look fine.  The one that worries me a little is the number of supertournament wins.  It's not exactly set in stone what makes a supertournament, and also, for some tournaments, there are joint winners.   Does a joint win count the same as an outright win?  Now, World Cup wins, Grand Chess Tour wins, etc., those are perfect, as there is one indisputable number.  For career supertournament wins, that's a more fuzzy number.
 * This is what I would propose as an alternative. No running total of wins, that number could lead to headaches.   Instead a 'major tournament wins' panel, similar to the 'Major Wins' one here    No supertournament vs. non super debate - if the tournament has a Wikipedia article, then it qualifies for inclusion.   --SubSeven (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not insurmountable, but it's going to get very messy - the European Individual is clearly a very strong tournament - it could be included, but like the Olympiad, they have medallists, not just a winner - include them all? Then the Americans might rightly expect the (equivalent) Pan-American contest to be included? What about the PCA world champions? New category for them? Undisputed world champions? We normally make a distinction for them. The GMA World Cup preceded the FIDE one. Separate category? The list goes on ... all the many, many world youth and junior champions for instance, they too are rewarded with medals, see Polish Wiki for long lists. There is also a difficulty in defining what is a major tournament, Would we be including 'Opens' as well as 'Closed/invitational' events? What if a tournament has good coverage in the chess press, but not yet an article here? - that would be a very long list - see an example edition of TWIC (The Week In Chess), but it would be hard to exclude non-articled tournaments with good sources and we might endlessly bicker over whether it was 'major' enough. Don't forget 'Opens', which can be super strong, don't have a FIDE category, so there is no easy 'major enough' yardstick. By the way, List of strong chess tournaments doesn't really have any precise criteria for inclusion. And wouldn't all of this be a disincentive to main article writers, if they are just replicating in words what is already listed at the side? Brittle heaven (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you're getting into the unanswerable question of what is a major and what isn't, and I just told you the way to get around that, take it or leave it :)  I don't think it would be necessary to futz around with medals outside of the Olympiad. --SubSeven (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think there should be a distinction between region-specific tournaments like the European championship, the Asian championship, regional Interzonals and national championships, etc. that give qualifying spots for tournaments at a higher level, and the elite invite-only sponsored tournaments such as Wijk aan Zee, Linares, Dortmund, Sinquefield, Norway, etc. The former are generally run by FIDE or other regional chess associations, the latter by private sponsors. For example, in the above example Carlsen's Norwegian championship and Anand's Indian titles are apart from their wins at the sponsored tournaments. I also think that for now, tournaments with non-standard time controls shouldn't be included for the same reason the bio infobox currently only lists a player's standard FIDE rating. Junior/UnderX titles can be limited to the World Junior/Youth/Cadets championships run by FIDE, since even at that level there are only a few winners with Wikipedia pages.


 * The eternal question of what exactly constitutes a 'major' tournament will probably never be answered, in my humble opinion it shouldn't negate trying to expand the infobox. 11achitturi (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How is a list of major tournaments "useful comparative data" when we've already admitted we don't even know what a major tournament is? "The 'accomplishments' pages for most top chess players are very haphazard and inconsistent" because the elite chess tournament circuit is very haphazard and inconsistent. Chess is (unfortunately) unlike other sports in that regard. And if User:SubSeven is suggesting that the NCAA Chess Championship or the Seychelles Chess Championship are major chess tournaments while the Bugojno chess tournaments or the Chess World Cup 1988 were not, I'll leave that suggestion rather than take it, thank you very much. Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A tournament series defunct for 30 years is your sticking point? Seriously?  It seems like you're just trying to be argumentative.  This is a pretty standard way to handle this kind of issue on Wikipedia.  Accept that if a tournament has a properly sourced article, then it is notable, and that's your dividing line for inclusion.   Then there is no protracted edit warring which you were concerned about.  If the word 'major' bothers you,  then a header like 'Notable tournament victories' works just as well.   And is this your only objection to this idea overall?  Initially, you made a very blanket statement that this infobox expansion would lead to edit wars and didn't clarify.  I don't see how there would be much warring over a player's world championships, candidates wins, World Cup wins, etc. --SubSeven (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not accept for a second that "if a tournament has a properly sourced article, then it is notable, and that's your dividing line for inclusion." Yes, I'm trying to be argumentative – if people were not argumentative, there would be no edit wars. Having sensible rules would avoid such arguments; but your rule is not sensible. Let's take the example of Carlsen: by your rule, we would be including in the infobox not just the events listed above, but also Biel 2007 and 2011, Baku 2008, Pearl Spring 2009 and 2010, London 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2015, Sinquefield Cup 2013, Zurich 2014, Shamkir 2014 and 2015, Norway Chess Blitz 2014, 2016 and 2017, GRENKE 2015, Norway Chess 2016, Paris and Leuven 2017, and possibly also Corus-C 2004, Corus-B 2006, and maybe even the U11 Norwegian Championship in 2000. That would make for an absurdly long infobox.
 * IMO the only events clearly worth including in an infobox are wins in the latter stages of the world championship qualifying cycle, including Candidates tournaments, Candidates matches finals, Interzonals and World Cups; and the FIDE rapid and blitz world championships – in other words, only those events that would not lead to significant edit-warring (as you suggest, and I concur.) No "super-tournaments" (what is a super-tournament?), no national championships (is the Scottish championship a national championship? is the Faroese? why not continental championships?), no "honours" of any sort (be it the twice-defunct Chess Oscar or the bizarrely chosen World Chess Hall of Fame), no tournament series whose composition changes every year and might go extinct as soon as one key sponsor pulls the plug (GMA World Cup/PCA Super Classic/Grand Slam/Grand Chess Tour). Cobblet (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As shown in the example I linked before, you would only need one line/bullet point for every tournament series, and indicate years won in parentheses. Also many of the ones you listed don't have their own article.  Carlsen would have one bullet point each for Biel, Pearl Spring, London, Sinquefield, Zurich, Shamkir, GRENKE, and Norway Chess.  That's not that excessive.  And Carlsen is the edge case.  Anyway, that's the objective way to do it, as opposed to any editor's take on what is worthy. --SubSeven (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern re: so-called "major tournaments"; identifying them should not be taken lightly. It seems that world titles (in all three time controls) + candidates/interzonals and World Cups are not in dispute either. But why not include the national chess championships? They have clear-cut winners, are held annually, and follow an established set of rules. They are not at the mercy of a sponsor and there is one for each country (not including accompanying open tournaments).


 * If you wish, we should start with a list of possibilities and narrow down from there. My proposal (I believe this was 's idea as well) is that we limit the list to those included in the "Major recurring chess tournaments" (emphasis on the "Major present" section) and "Chess national championships" templates provided by Wikipedia. Which tournaments in the following lists do you,, or think should not be included? 11achitturi (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

All of them. The world championships and their associated events are the only ones sanctioned by the official governing body of the sport: they are the only ones whose significance is largely not in doubt (Classical/FIDE split notwithstanding). Everything else is subjective – you're already showing a recentist bias yourself. Also, every one of the assumptions you've made about the national championships is wrong. Cobblet (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Went away for a while, seems the discussion has stalled. For now, seems like people generally agree that the following accomplishments are eligible to be in an expanded infobox:


 * World Championships
 * World Rapid & Blitz Championships
 * Candidates' tournaments, Interzonals, strictly FIDE-affiliated wins that would not lead to edit-warring.


 * For now, what is the next step to take and how would this be implemented? constructed a child infobox as an example, but eventually the main infobox would also have to be changed? Or would an entirely new infobox need to be created? Any chance of progression on this? 11achitturi (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The Chess template
First, to get it out in the open, I don't like template Chess. What a great idea, an absolutely ginormous template that supporters seem destined to deposit on 4500 chess articles. That said, I'm sure I can't kill it. I can ask that people always use |state=collapsed. In fact, can we change the template default from default=autocollapsed to default=collapsed? The more useful default=destroy-with-fire doesn't seem to be supported. Quale (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto the bulky Chess variants template someone put on many/all CV articles (e.g. Patrol chess, where the template box is bigger than the article). --IHTS (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

FIDE
I am participating in an edit war at FIDE. Both of us have contributed to both the article and the talk page. It seems unresolved. What do I (we) do next? Suggestions welcome. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, continue discussing on the talk page until there is a consensus. I will make a comment over there shortly. My initial view is that you are correct that a "headquarters" is where the staff are based.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Glossary mission
Lots of activity against the glossary but am not sure they're all well conceived. E.g. a glossary is not identical to dictionary which aims merely to distinctly define a term, so then is it beneficial to remove what is intended to contribute to real understanding for example the elimination of examples such as done in this edit? Another example of removal of text beyond strict definition that gave more contextual understanding of a term:. More whittling down to strict dictionary definition:. Also there seems to be an undertaking for systematic elimination of "1." and "2." etc. explanation of terms where they exist, I'm not sure that's going in right direction for when flexibility for future might be needed for reader clarity especially when a term can be both noun and verb, etc. --IHTS (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Many of the recent edits to the chess glossary have been very good, such as citing references for dozens of entries and eliminating really some poor content such as "flashing the queen". I'm not sure a few edits have improved the glossary, although entries such as  really have far too many examples and a few other entries such as  read like a mini essay (too instructional and opinionated and not definitional).  I'm not too concerned since the old versions are still available in page history, so I'm leaving the glossary alone now because it is being churned rapidly and I don't want to make conflicting edits.  When the pace of changes slows, I intend to review the entire glossary from A to Z comparing every entry to the old more stable glossary and to a half dozen general references (Hooper & Whyld, Golombek, Sunnuck, Burgess, Brace, Horton) and probably some beginners glossaries (Seirawan and Silman).  Occasionally more specialized references might be helpful (e.g. Nimzowitsch and Fine), and I'll check any of the references currently used that I have access to.
 * I also want to change the citation format. This can be controversial and sensitive (WP:CITEVAR), but the list of citations has ballooned to 440 and could exceed 500 soon.  This makes the references section much too large, even in multi-column format.  There are so many entries to cite that I don't think Help:Citation merging would make a difference.  Since many of the same references are cited repeatedly but with different page numbers, I think the article should either switch to parenthetical referencing (the inline Harvard style favored by Bubba73) or use Rp.  Although inline Harvard would be an improvement over the cite style we use in the article now, I don't favor it here (or most places in Wikipedia actually) since I think it's too intrusive and really seems overly academic for popular culture subjects such as most chess articles.  I think most readers don't care about the citations at all, and there's no reason to believe that any significant portion of the readers of a chess glossary (likely to not be very familiar with chess) would recognize many of the authors' names.  I recognize that the Rp style is very obscure, but I think it's really the best option in the fortunately relatively small number of articles like this that could easily have 100 or 200 cites to a single work, and 20 or more cites to each of several others.  I'll discuss my proposal to change the citation style on the article talk page before I try to do it.  Quale (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a lot of work. Bravo! ;) --IHTS (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Head-to-head record against X
I am declaring my intention to delete all sections in chess players' articles titled 'Head to head record against selected grandmasters' or similar. It affects several high-profile articles so I am posting here first to see if there are any reasonable objections.

These sections should be removed on the grounds of WP:INDISCRIMINATE - "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". There is no such context given in any of these articles, and no rhyme or reason to using this collection of data. Show me one notable chess writer or commentator, who, when discussing a player's accomplishments in a broader sense, states that said player is +4-2=3 against one random player, and +6-1=10 against another random player, +2-5=4 against another, etc. You won't, because it's simply not meaningful information. Given the nature of tournament chess, there is no guarantee that players are playing each other on a regular basis, and because of that, in some cases, these numbers can cross the line from being rather useless into being downright deceptive.

There are also WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS concerns as well. Simply the selection of the grandmasters is original research (selected by who?).

Anyway, if you disagree, speak now. --SubSeven (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of removing those sections. I also have concerns that they aren't sourced reliably.  Searches of online games databases doesn't provide adequate sourcing.  I'm also concerned that the information can change quickly.  When a player's career is over, it's sometimes possible to find reliable sources that give the player's lifetime record against other prominent players of the same era.  Quale (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with all of the points made above; there are some brief statistical facts that can help illuminate, e.g. 'xxx had a plus score against his arch-rival yyy', or 'xxx defeated three world champions', but the context and reason for inclusion should be obvious. Brittle heaven (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would object to the removal in Bobby Fischer's case - there it can be easily sourced, eg. Wade and O'Connell's Complete Games of Bobby Fischer. If the objection is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in his case it could be restricted to his record against fellow World Champions, or Soviet players (there was a whole book written on that, Russians vs Fischer.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the existence of articles such as Roger Federer career statistics relevant to this discussion in any way? Just putting it out there. At the very least it shows that there is a precedent for including information on an athlete's career record against competitors. FinalForm (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For a retired or deceased player where solid references exist (as is the case with Fischer) I think the lifetime head-to-head records should be included. Do we have a truly reliable source for Magnus Carlsen's head-to-head records?  And they can change monthly, weekly or even daily, which I think is a problem for maintaining the pages.   I don't feel good about constantly churning the articles of active players, especially based on search results against incomplete and unreliable databases.  Quale (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as Fischer's head-to-head record against other top players can be found in reliable sources, I would expect that we could find sources for Kasparov's lifetime record against other individuals. Quale (talk)
 * Really, for retired players in general I think it would be best to keep the section and look for a reliable source rather than delete it. FinalForm (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrograde Analyis
Hi, I am very very new to editing, so please be kind. There's two different kinds of Chess Retrograde Analysis. One is the game theoretic kind referred to in the backward chaining article, which allows for tablebases to be constructed computationally. However, the Retrograde Analysis article refers only to the second kind, which is the use of logical reasoning to make inferences about the legality of an artificially constructed problem position, for example by counting the number of pawn captures, determining whether castling or en passant are legal. Both are valid and interesting, but they are different. How can the article be fixed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gresach (talk • contribs) 08:06 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia always needs new editors who are willing to work to improve the encyclopedia.  With one or more good sources, almost any error or omission can be fixed.  I would start by finding a source that reveals something about the subject that is not covered in an existing article, then edit the article to include those facts and cite the source.  Although wikipedia requires sources, you should edit articles using your own words based on the sources as copying and pasting text directly from other sources can be a copyright violation.  If you are unsure how best to do this, you can start a discussion on the article's Talk page or here to see if someone will help you.  If you can't find a source but you're sure (or reasonably sure) that the article should discuss some aspect, you can also go to the article talk page to see if someone else can help find a source.  Although I linked to some policies and guidelines, wikipedia has a lot of bureaucratic rules (most for good reason) that can be difficult to navigate for new users.  If don't want to get bogged down in trying to digest all those rules that at once, just start editing or engaging in talk and you can figure it out as you go along.  Also, remember to sign your talk page posts (but not article edits) by ending with four tildes.  For example, ~, signs this edit with the date and time and editor like so:  Quale (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

URS
Just came across Universal Rating System. My sense, based on how recent it is and that it's based entirely on primary sources (the one apparently secondary source just quotes a press release), is that it's not notable. The in-depth coverage of ratings systems can be kind of obscure though, and there are some notable people involved with it so figured I'd ask here if anyone was familiar with it. My inclination would be to merge it to chess rating system, where it already has a brief mention with a main article link. Related: is there a reason to have List of strongest chess players by URS rating? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the ratings in chess rating system have a main article. The number one list surely can be merged though. Was the URS used anywhere else yet beside the Grand Chess tour? -Koppapa (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Tartakower Variation
There seem to be a number of Tartakower Variations (per Oxford Companion entry Tartakower Variation, 1996 p. 414). Would there be any interest or logic, then, to have an article by that name, ala Steinitz Variation? --IHTS (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox formatting
This is a very minor issue, but nevertheless I think it should be raised for the sake of standardization of formatting.

Currently, in the infoboxes of articles for top players, there are two main ways of presenting information regarding ratings and rankings (current rating, current ranking, peak rating, peak ranking):


 * 1: Listing all 4 as separate items, in whatever order - e.g. Magnus Carlsen, Teimour Radjabov


 * 2: Listing current ranking in small text after current rating - e.g. Alexander Grischuk, Michael Adams

Personally, I prefer the second format, so as I've been adding/updating ratings information and adding FIDE ID to the infoboxes of players where it isn't already included (so that the player's latest official rating is automatically displayed), I've generally used the second format. In cases where the first has already been established, however, I've left the format alone and only updated information (in most cases neither has been established, as current and peak ranking are often not included at all).

So anyway... in the interest of having a standard format, is one of the two preferable to the other?

FinalForm (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry this is so late. I don't think #2 is quite right.  Looking at Alexander Grischuk the infobox says


 * style="width: 60px" | FIDE || 2783 (August 2017)
 * rating || (No. 9 in the August 2017 FIDE World Rankings)
 * }
 * This looks like two separate items: a FIDE item with an odd number (that we recognize as a FIDE rating) followed by a month and year, and a second rating item with something that looks mislabeled because I recognize it as a ranking rather than a rating.
 * Using the template parameters as in option #1 works better. Each item (FIDE rating, Peak rating, FIDE ranking and Peak ranking) is a distinct entry on a separate line.  The order isn't random, it's determined by the Infobox chess player template and can be changed there if desired.  Also the formatting could be changed in the template as well if it was desired to put the rankings in the same entry as the ratings, but I don't favor this.  It works OKish for the current rating and ranking, but is completely broken for the peaks since they don't necessarily occur at the same time.  Also adding the very long ranking text (No. 9 in the August 2017 FIDE World Rankings) even in small font size will wrap the infobox entry to a second line as it does with Grischuk, and I think this is unappealing.  In spite of this, if it is desired to display the current rating and rank in the same entry I would suggest that the template be modified so the month and year (e.g. August 2017) is printed once rather than being duplicated.
 * All this said, I hardly do anything with chess player infoboxes at all and I'm a strong proponent that the editors willing to do the work get to decide things like this. (Subject to the bounds of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, of course, but that isn't a factor here.)  Quale (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Using the template parameters as in option #1 works better. Each item (FIDE rating, Peak rating, FIDE ranking and Peak ranking) is a distinct entry on a separate line.  The order isn't random, it's determined by the Infobox chess player template and can be changed there if desired.  Also the formatting could be changed in the template as well if it was desired to put the rankings in the same entry as the ratings, but I don't favor this.  It works OKish for the current rating and ranking, but is completely broken for the peaks since they don't necessarily occur at the same time.  Also adding the very long ranking text (No. 9 in the August 2017 FIDE World Rankings) even in small font size will wrap the infobox entry to a second line as it does with Grischuk, and I think this is unappealing.  In spite of this, if it is desired to display the current rating and rank in the same entry I would suggest that the template be modified so the month and year (e.g. August 2017) is printed once rather than being duplicated.
 * All this said, I hardly do anything with chess player infoboxes at all and I'm a strong proponent that the editors willing to do the work get to decide things like this. (Subject to the bounds of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, of course, but that isn't a factor here.)  Quale (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I prefer the first version. The small text underneath the rating is misplaced considering the parameter is rating, not ranking. Additionally, as User:Quale says, the ranking text along with the rating causes a run-on line which is less succinct and less aesthetically pleasing. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * For now, I'm going to remove the redundant month info within the parentheses but keep the parenthetical format. I'll focus on keeping the stats up to date, and if in the future people do decide that the other format is preferable they can easily change the format. FinalForm (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Chessbrah
Articles for deletion/Chessbrah could use additional participation from watchers of this page. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Two knights endgame
− Will someone look at the recent edits to Two knights endgame and the long discussion on the talk page? (I'm tired of looking at it.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This article needs additional help from experienced editors. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

William Lombardy
William Lombardy has been nominated for the Recent Deaths section at In the news/Candidates. There aren't many details on his death yet - only a post at Chess.com as far as I can see. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

AfD notice for Andrew Tang
Please comment on Articles for deletion/Andrew Tang. — JFG talk 22:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for your project?
Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community. Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

if a bishop is blocking a check can the opponets king move into the path of the bishop
this move is like this... a bishop is blocking a castle from checking the king, now can the opponent move a king in the path of the bishop? can you move a king in the path of the bishop even if the bishop is blocking a check — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.74.191 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No; a piece that is in an absolute pin can still deliver check. Think about it this way: If kings could be actually captured in the game, and it was the other player's turn, that player could move his/her bishop and capture your king before it would be your move, so you couldn't capture your opponent's king with your castle because your king would have already been captured by your move. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 04:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability of chess players
The following is a proposal to be added to Notability (sports). Once consensus has been reached here, it will be submitted to the official guidelines. Please discuss changes on the talk page. If you support the proposal, please also comment on the talk page so that we can establish consensus.


 * A chess player is presumed notable if he or she meets one or more of the following criteria:
 * 1) Has been awarded the title of grandmaster.
 * 2) Has participated in a World Chess Championship, Women's World Chess Championship, Chess World Cup or the top section of another tournament widely recognised as one of the strongest chess tournaments of its time. See List of strong chess tournaments.
 * 3) Has won a national championship.

Note: The above was moved from the main WikiProject page since it seems like a proposal for discussion belongs with the discussion rather than where it would go if implemented. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added a proposal to the project page about the notability of chess players. This is to help reduce ambiguity when determining whether to create a new article, or when it comes to chess player articles being nominated for deletion. Does the current proposal satisfy requirements? I particularly want to avoid any existing chess player articles slipping through the gaps. Players before the modern era are more difficult, but I think the criteria of having had to play in a strong tournament should cover them. Greenman (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A "strong tournament" would need to be one where mere participation is considered highly prestigious. The Tata Steel tournament would qualify, but participation in the Chess Olympiad, while worth mentioning if the player is notable, should not be sufficient for notability by itself. For example, the US Virgin Islands team in 2016 includes players with a 1500-level Elo rating, and that is far below a professional or even semi-professional level. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since we're talking about presumed notability, I would suggest more stringent criteria. I would remove the Olympiad (agree with Sjakkalle's points) and Grand Prix (has anyone played in the Grand Prix who isn't a GM?) from the criteria. I would also remove the "strong tournament" requirement – WP:GNG should capture anyone who has participated in such a tournament. I would suggest adding the Women's World Chess Championship. Cobblet (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I take the point about modern Chess Olympiads containing very weak participants, and so we can remove that. I would prefer not to rely on WP:GNG except as a fallback - the purpose of the proposal is to simplify discussions. Removing the strong tournament criteria though could mean that notable early era players risk not meeting any criteria. For example Max Lange did not earn any titles, play in one of the other listed events, nor win a national chess championship (unless counting the WDSB-Congress), but should be unambiguously notable. Agree that we can also remove the Grand Prix, and rely on the strong tournament criteria. The Women's World Chess Championship is meant to be included, so will specify that too. I will make these changes to the page shortly and we can take it from there. Greenman (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to rely on GNG, the standard Wikipedia policy on this point, than have to argue what a "strong tournament" is, for which having a list of so-called "strong tournaments" containing no explicit criteria for inclusion does not help. Similar to Sjakkalle's concerns about weak Olympiad participants, I have concerns about weak players at older "strong tournaments" – the James Mucklow types. IMO it's easy enough to point to, say, Rod Edwards' excellent website for reliable sources on strong historical players like Max Lange if their notability is challenged. Cobblet (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for initiating this. We really need WP:NCHESS - for example, see Articles for deletion/Romesh Weerawardane which has been nominated as "failing WP:NSPORTS" when chess is not even mentioned in the NSPORTS guideline. I personally think IMs are notable too - they are still in the top 0.25% of all tournament players, but this seems to be a minority view. I think there should be a criteria that players with titles below GM are notable if they have made a significant contribution outside of tournament competition, eg as a chess author, journalist or trainer.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like he would fail under the current iteration of the proposal, but not under the first iteration. He has not won a national championship, and is only an International Master. However, he has played in the Chess Olympiad (and happens to be Sri Lanka's only International Master). Greenman (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that chess bios need a special notability guideline has been made at least a couple times before in the last 7 or 8 years—you can probably find the earlier discussions in the archives for this talk page. I've always thought that chess does not need a special guideline and that WP:GNG should be sufficient, possibly with WP:SPORTBIO as a backup.  I must admit that I think that I'm in the minority as it seems to me that most chess editors who expressed an opinion have favored a special guideline.  People have suggested a special guide for both reasons of inclusion and exclusion.  Sometimes they have suggested the the special guideline would save a chess bio they think is in danger of unfair deletion, others have suggested that the special guideline is needed to remove chess bios that are not deserving of inclusion.  On the whole I suspect that a guideline would lead to a few more deleted bios than it would save, but that's just a guess.  Either way I don't think special rules are needed for chess.
 * I actually lie in the inclusionist side of the spectrum concerning chess biographies as I would need a very convincing argument before I would believe that deleting a chess bio that meets GNG would improve the encyclopedia. In fact, I think a short bio of James Mucklow might be a good addition to the encyclopedia.  It's easy to understand why Staunton and Bird and Anderssen and Löwenthal and Kieseritzky played the London 1851 chess tournament, but how did Mucklow get invited?  If there isn't much to say about it it can go in the tournament article, but I believe in the value of building the web.  Every player in the world championship and women's world championship candidates tournaments should have an article, even if it's very brief.  (These tournaments are so large that it's impractical to discuss every competitor in the WC articles themselves, and every one deserves at least a short article with basic biographical information such as date and place of birth unless no sources can be found.)  I also believe that the biggest fish get articles, even when they are from very small ponds.  (And in chess, the men and women swim in different ponds, so the women are compared against each other.)  The best player in Sri Lanka deserves an article.  (I thought the best player in every country deserved an article, but then I looked at the FIDE roster for Antigua and Barbuda and changed my mind.)  On that point, I'm not sure Romesh Weerawardane meets WP:GNG and apparently he's the 9th ranked player in Sri Lanka.  If you are 9th ranked in Russia, Ukraine, USA, etc., you are a world class GM.  9th ranked in Sri Lanka is not that.  Weerawardane might be Sri Lanka's only IM, but apparently Sri Lanka has a couple FMs rated about 300 points higher.  Quale (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with user Quale. It has proven too difficult to draw up any exhaustive list of criteria in the past, because the net that is cast needs not only to catch the deserving non-GMs, but also the top broadcasters, writers, journalists, coaches, organizers, administrators etc. That said, if the above proposal is simply an attempt at some high-level criteria that would give an editor's idea for a biographicsl article a cast-iron chance of achieving notability, then it seems fairly satisfactory to me. I guess you could also add 'Has won a continental or inter-continental youth competition'. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of notability of chess players, Evan Ju is an article that might have escaped my notice until just now as I don't find the claim for notability ("youngest ever New Jersey state chess champion and the first to hold both the NJ Junior and NJ Open titles") to be very compelling. This was at age 15, and the modern benchmark for young chess players is that they should be near GM strength at this age to be considered a prodigy. I think perhaps the prodigy label refers to his chess skill relative to his peers a few years earlier. But the article is well written and it doesn't read like a vanity page to me. Quale (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Brief statistical comment here: if you look at List of chess grandmasters (1780 entries, of which 184 are dead [of which there are 17 without articles], so there are around 1596 living GMs on the list), you will see that the article says that there are currently (November 2017) around 1594 grandmasters on the FIDE rating list (the figure for the February 2018 list is 1595). If you assume that all the blue-links on the list are the 1066 articles in Category:Chess grandmasters, then you get a figure of 530 red-links at List of chess grandmasters, and presumably 17 of those are the dead ones without articles (some of which should definitely have articles) and there are around 513 living GMs with no articles. Some of these will be very obscure, certainly in English-language sources, though all will have some record of their chess-playing activity and the award of their titles can be sourced. Maybe someone can flesh out a list of GMs without articles, if no-one has done that yet, and maintain it in the WikiProject pages somewhere (such as here: "over 500 grandmasters lack articles on the English Wikipedia although many have Wikipedia articles in other languages")? Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Chess Olympiad
I have reconsidered this, and want to rethink the Chess Olympiad criterion, as I think the current guideline is too strict, and could lead to the deletion of a number of players that would otherwise be notable. I particularly want to avoid Systemic bias, where women as well as players from certain geographical regions tend to be under-represented. We are discussing notability, not strength. In my country, a mid to low-ranking chess playing country, the top players are mostly International Masters. A player that has finished second in the most prestigious tournament in the country, and has played in the chess olympiad, is arguably more notable than a low-ranked grandmaster from a country that has many. They would receive coverage in national media, and it would be a shame to delete them. Also, looking at guidelines for other sports players, players that are the equivalent of weak chess olympiad players are deemed notable. For example, in Rugby Union, players that have played in their national Rugby Sevens Team at the Commonwealth Games are acceptable. This includes teams such as Swaziland and Cayman Island, where the rugby standards are very low. Similarly, in Cricket, players that have appeared in just one Division Six international game are seen as notable. This includes teams such as Norway and Botswana, absolute minnows in cricket. So, I would like to reinstate appearance in a Chess Olympiad as sufficiently notable. A player may be weak, but being the top five or so in their country is still a substantial achievement. If there is a strong objection to this, perhaps appearance in the Chess Olympiad along with the International Master title is a good compromise of strength and notability. Greenman (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG derives from Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability and NPOV. It is meant to be an objective test of whether a subject is notable. Notability is not subjective. We are not here to debate whether being in "the top five or so" in any country is "a substantial achievement"; or whether "a player that has finished second in the most prestigious tournament in the country, and has played in the chess Olympiad, is arguably more notable than a low-ranked grandmaster from a country that has many." If such a player does in fact "receive coverage in national media", that is objective evidence of notability and can be used to satisfy WP:GNG.
 * The purpose of WP:NSPORTS is to provide "bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet" WP:GNG. It is not meant to replace WP:GNG in situations where objective notability cannot be demonstrated. What other WP:NSPORTS guidelines recommend is irrelevant to the extent that they ignore WP:GNG. Relying on the presence of reliable sources instead of on what certain editors feel to be "notable" should actually reduce the risk of systemic bias. Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ^^ This, basically. I usually add the qualifier "quasi-" to "objective" when talking about notability, since there's plenty of gray area, but it contrasts with the purely subjective measure of editors deciding this or that is important (e.g. participants of a particular tournament). What matters is under what conditions is there almost certainly going to be significant coverage of a subject in reliable sources independent of the subject. "Just" being a GM might even be pushing it, although I would agree that being a GM makes one likely to be notable. No opinion on the tournaments. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Shogi
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shogi. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Nominated Category:Gambits for merger with Category:Chess openings
Feel free to join the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_21. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

AfD notice for Rasmus Svane
Please comment on Articles for deletion/Rasmus Svane. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Shogi stuff on "most wanted" list
WikiProject_Chess/Most_Wanted contains a lot of Japanese names, presumably Shogi players, and other Shogi-related material. This makes it less useful when looking for new articles to create. Maybe we should reorganize the Categories system so that these don't appear under the Category:Chess supercategory? Shogi is of course a major board game in its own right with its own competitions and its own traditions. I always thought treating Shogi as a "chess variant" was rather Eurocentric. I wonder if the Japanese wikipedia classifies chess as a "shogi variant"? MaxBrowne (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what modern scholarship has to say about it, but if these games are in fact all derived from chaturanga then we could create Category:Games derived from chaturanga to distinguish these from variants of post-shatranj chess. Cobblet (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "Major game in its own right" applies also to xiangqi, makruk, and more as well. --IHTS (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

broken link
The 'random chess article' link: https://tools.wmflabs.org/erwin85/randomarticle.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&categories=Chess&subcats=1&d=5 fails with a MySQL error. It seems Erwin85 is inactive, so it doesn't make much sense to write on the personal talkpage. Sorry if this is not the proper place for this report. 89.135.154.97 (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Chessmaster 2000
For the video game Chessmaster 2000, one user has been making some assertions about how the game plays without providing a source to back it up. Does anyone have something that can help there? 208.47.202.254 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

wikidata chess games DB
hi.

(background): some of you may remember old proposal that was brought up twice in the past, and despite more support that opposition, never got anywhere. it's about adding a chess-game viewer widget, such as on most chess sites, which consumes PGN (or algebraic notation) to display and replay the game. such tool is installed in hewiki, and you can see it in action Here.

a user on hewiki which function as the local "WikiProject Chess", floated the idea to start building (and maintaining) games database on wikidata, so the games will be available on all wikis. this will enable, e.g., to place a single template on a player's page, with some behind-the-scenes Lua module that will suck the data from wikidata, such that all the available games where this person is one of the players will be listed, possibly with "click to replay" functionality that will bring up the widget and display the game.

the beauty of it is that once the work of creating the infrastructure is done (template, lua module, some JS gadgets etc.), by maintaining the wikidata data, every single wiki in any language will be able to show it for any player with article on this wiki.

similarly, any article about some chess event (e.g., World Chess Championship 2016), will be able to show (and replay) all the games automagically, by including a single template.

with all this data in place, some other "magic" is possible, e.g., a template similar to Chess diagram can learn to operate by declaring the game, the specific move, and the caption, something like

or even displaying multiple positions from the same game, say

which will display several diagrams from the same game, without having to build the diagram by hand - just state the game and the move and everything else happens programmatically, as long as this game is available in wikidata.

note that these things are not necessarily related: once this database is established, different wikis can decide to use it in different ways, such as interactive replay (as we do in hewiki), clever templates for diagrams (as outlined above), or simply to display a list of games for the player and event, with the desired details from the metadata when present.

this idea sounds compelling enough, and i hope we'll go forward with it even without if it turns out enwiki chess community is uninterested, but i wanted to float it here and see what this community thinks, and hear more views and ideas regarding such project.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I love the game player widget! I've wanted something like that for years for Wikipedia! Can it be added in English now? I'd love to test it out.
 * I'm less interested in the database idea, because that requires more expertise, e.g. the ability to go over and edit another wiki, presumably in something like Wikisource. I think it's fine to just have the widget and then when a suitable game is found, the editor simply cuts+pastes the pgn.
 * In any case, the widget in English is the logical first step, and I would certainly use it. Adpete (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * the proposal to add my pgn viewer to enwiki went twice through "proposals" (some of it can be found by searching "pgnviewer" in the archives of this page), and in both cases was "sabotaged" by well-intentioned editors that screamed "i can do better", derailed the proposals, and did not follow through. if you want to try and push this through, you are more than welcome. if the community will decide to accept the proposal, i will be more than happy to help as much as i can to deploy it here. for reference, when these proposals were discussed, i was asked (and delivered) to stand up a demo on the test wiki ([test.wikipedia.org]), and even got me "admin" rights there, so it won't be too much or a stretch to repeat the process (alternatively, if anyone wants to.


 * assuming the enwiki community is not interested in this widget at this time, i would still appreciate input regarding wikidata game DB - how desirable is it, how can it be used best once it's there, how it should be structured, etc. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like fun. Some of the "notable games" in our biographies are just links to chessgames.com, but some are actual game scores, and I would certainly try to use this widget for them.  Bruce leverett (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

update: wikidata now has chess games
as a bonus, one of the sysops in hewiki (User:ערן) created a module to suck the game information from WD. so now, in hewiki, one can show a chess game that exists on wikidata, like so:. please visit he:טיוטה:Chess game from wikidata, and then view the page in "edit" mode (if you find the UI in foreign language confusing, add "?uselang=en" (without the quotes) to the address line. when the address line already contains a question mark (e.g., when editing), use "&uselang=en" (i.e., replace the ? with &).

peace.

Articles related to world championship cycles
In my opinion the qualification portion of a world championship cycle (e.g. Interzonals, Candidates tournaments and matches) should be covered in separate articles from the main world championship article. Of course the main article would link to and summarise the articles relating to the qualification process. We have ample precedent for this on the wider wikipedia, e.g. 1974 FIFA World Cup qualification. I disagree with User:Adpete's edit, turning the Zurich 1953 chess tournament article into a redirect. The tournament itself is surely notable enough to justify its own article (it's even the subject of a famous book). Likewise I disagree with the tag that was placed on Interzonal tournament, Saltsjöbaden 1948. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * To me it's all about quantity. If there is a lot of information about the tournament (as is the case for Candidates Tournament 2018, for instance), then a separate article is warranted. But if the article is so short 100% of it is incorporated into the main World Championship article anyway, then what is the point of a separate article? Adpete (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That is an argument for expanding the Zurich 1953 chess tournament article rather than merging it. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with both of you, if that's possible. I strongly believe that the general rule is that if we don't have much to say about the Candidates Tournament then it should be a section in the championship article rather than a standalone.  I also agree that we should have enough to say about Zurich 1953 to justify a standalone article, although the article is over 8 years old and still doesn't say anything.  The description of the tournament found in World Chess Championship 1954 is better.  I think it's much better to start in the parent article and WP:SPINOUT to a standalone article only after it is justified, but when an article such as this already exists and I think it can be expanded to justify a standalone I might leave it alone rather than doing a merge and redirect.
 * All that said, in my opinion a greater problem is so many World Championship articles say next to nothing about the championship match itself at all. World Chess Championship 1954 is a great example.  The entirety of the reporting about the WC match is:
 * "The match was played as best of 24 games. If it ended 12-12, Botvinnik, the holder, would retain the Championship. [ match crosstable ] Botvinnik retained the Championship."
 * That's not good. I think it behooves us to expand the sections on the WC matches themselves before worrying too much about the Candidates. Quale (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Articles on wikipedia will always be created and updated according to the interests, motivation levels and whims of individual editors, without much regard for relative importance or priorities. That's why pokemon characters get articles while woman scientists do not. So if someone wants to write up a candidates tournament while the article on the championship match itself is still inadequate, that's totally fine. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As a general statement, that's obvious and undeniable. In the specific case at hand it seems to miss the point a bit.  The Candidates has Zurich 1953 chess tournament which is little more than the crosstable, and the 1954 WC match has the two sentences I quoted before.  There are no facts in evidence here that suggest anyone wants to write up a Candidates Tournament.  Adpete asked why we have a separate article for Zurich 1953, and given that it hasn't really been improved in 8-1/2 years, I'd say that's a reasonable question.  Quale (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Notability of chess players, redux – time to close this
The current AfD discussion on Irmgard Kärner underscores the usefulness of having some easily applicable criteria for determining notability of chess players in addition to WP:GNG. Since the previous discussion has gone stale, I propose that the following guideline be added to WP:NSPORTS:

A chess player is presumed notable if he or she meets at least one of the following criteria:
 * 1) Has been awarded the title of grandmaster.
 * 2) Has participated in a World Chess Championship, Women's World Chess Championship or Chess World Cup.
 * 3) Has won a national or continental championship or women's championship.
 * 4) Has earned a team or individual medal at a Chess Olympiad. [per Quale's suggestion below]

While recognizing that there are several people who feel this formulation does not go far enough, I believe it encompasses the sort of chess player that everyone in the previous discussion would agree is obviously likely to meet WP:GNG. I will add this guideline to WP:NSPORTS if: I am happy to consider modifications to the proposal. But please keep in mind that the purpose of WP:NSPORTS is not to supplant WP:GNG in situations where objective notability cannot be demonstrated, but to provide "bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet" WP:GNG. Cobblet (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Somebody seconds this proposal; and
 * 2) Any objections that are raised are resolved by the end of March.
 * Seconded. This is long overdue, as the latest Afd demonstrates - we have an editor saying “I have no idea what the chess notability guidelines are.” I would have gone slightly further but I would support everything you have included. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be helpful. My concern is that that would be used to argue for deletion of other chess biographies, particularly of players prior to 1950.  "I have no idea what the chess notability guidelines are" concerns me not in the least, since the same criteria that apply to any biography apply to chess player bios as well.  But as I've always said, it's my feeling over the past 5 years that I'm probably the only one who doesn't see the value in having unique criteria for chess player notability, and no one else seems to think it would hurt.  But if you think it will help save articles like Irmgard Kärner, I have to tell you those articles are not often deleted now and these kinds of criteria will be used to argue for deletion of other chess bios.  Overall I think it would lead to more deletions.  But if it would lead to the deletion of Evan Ju then I guess that wouldn't be all bad.  Quale (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a WP:NSPORTS guideline could possibly be used to "argue for deletion of other chess bios" when it explicitly does not supplant WP:GNG. Cobblet (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't think you would see AFD nominations and votes use "doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS criteria for chess players" as an argument? I think we would. Quale (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No doubt we would. In fact exactly that argument has already been made even without such a guideline in place. But if the article nevertheless satisfied WP:GNG, we would simply respond with arguments to that effect and a reminder that meeting WP:GNG is sufficient for notability, as the bolded second sentence of WP:NSPORTS explicitly says. Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, and there will always be weak or even invalid arguments made at AFD. I will caution that even though by all rights a GNG argument should trump NSPORTS, a not insignificant number of wikipedians do not understand that.  One would hope that the AFD closer would understand policy, but experience has led me to not take anything for granted at AFD.  Because of this, my guess is that putting chess in NSPORTS would cause more trouble than it would avoid, but that's just my guess.  There aren't very many chess article AFDs these days so it would probably be hard to know for sure either way.  Basically I don't see the need for this as acutely as others do.  I don't think we've had a chess article deleted that I thought should have been kept for a couple years now, although there were a few lost going farther back.  I suppose if MrManticore ever returns, I may have reason to reconsider whether my belief that we don't need chess-specific criteria is correct.  Quale (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Something something infinite something something human stupidity, but if a closer doesn't understand that WP:GNG trumps WP:NSPORTS I have little doubt that would be a "substantial procedural error" appealable under WP:DRVPURPOSE. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, although I don't favor any addition to NSPORTS for chess, if there chess is to be added to NSPORTS I might include "Has earned a team or individual medal at a Chess Olympiad". On the other hand, practically the effect might be nil at least for the men since 1950 since most or all of them would be included under one of the other criteria.  It might include some female IMs or WIMs who had successful Olympiads.  Quale (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That will actually bring in quite a few men (from Endre Steiner through Sami Khader) and women (Lea Nudelman through Mariola Woźniak), especially back when these were determined by percentage score rather than performance rating, although both Khader and Woźniak got their medals in Baku 2016 by performance rating. (Khader is the first male non-GM to have won a board medal since the switch was made in 2008.) I have no problem with including this criterion if someone else seconds its addition. Cobblet (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would second that addition.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Cobblet, your knowledge of the history of team chess (and other chess subjects too) continues to impress. I'm comfortable with whatever you think is best here.  Quale (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've been informed that NSPORTS is only for the manliest and sweatiest of sports. So instead I've added the guideline to our main page: see WP:NCHESS. Cobblet (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Outrageous. Maybe we can set up WP:NMINDSPORTS.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's all right. I should've been more careful and called it a chessboxing guideline. Cobblet (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Further update: The existence of the NCHESS shortcut has been challenged at Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 16 on the grounds that it is "misleading." Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not having much luck here are we. Thanks for the notice; I've made a comment over there.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The shortcut was kept. Cobblet (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the record. I didn't see this second thread come up before it was implemented. It's quite clear from Articles for deletion/Ingrid Aliaga Fernández that people intend this to supplant the GNG/notability standards rather than indicate what chess-related subjects will be notable. If something meets these criteria but has not had significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject over a period of time (i.e. WP:N / WP:GNG), it shouldn't be there. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My response to you is the same as my response to Quale: if people misinterpret this guideline, they should be reminded of what it means – which they were in the Aliaga discussion. The guideline's use of the word "presumed" merely mirrors the usage of the word in GNG, which says that the presumption of notability based on that guideline (and by extension this one) is rebuttable and not absolute. Cobblet (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Diffusion of chess openings into subcategories
More fun in category:chess openings. Now an editor never seen in WP:CHESS has created a bunch of subcategories of category:chess openings and is recategorizing openings articles into those subcats. I don't see the value of this. Listing openings as Open, Closed, Semi-Open, etc., seems to me to be a good example of something that belongs in one or more lists and does not belong in categories. What do you think? 02:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The timing was unfortunate too, right after I raised a Cfm over the Gambits category. This editor seems to specialize in categorizing articles. I don't see any value in sub-categorizing chess openings like this. It seems a bit ludicrous to me to classify the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit as a Closed Game, for example.


 * Hooper & Whyld:


 * close game, or closed game, a game characterized by manoeuvres behind the lines.
 * close opening, one that begins 1.d4 d5, a term of no strategic significance.
 * open game (1) a game that beigins with 1.e4 e5. These moves sometimes lead to a close game. (2) a game in which pawn exchanges open diagonals, files and perhaps ranks for use by the line-pieces, as distinct from a close-game, when the range of these pieces is restricted.
 * semi-close game, an opening in which White commences 1.d4 and Black does not reply 1...d5.
 * semi-open game, an opening in which White plays 1.e5 and Black does not replay 1...e5.
 * MaxBrowne (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * i dont agree. Categorization is helpful to me as a reader. Disagreeing with a specific categorization does not entail that all categorizations are bad. (Besides, multiple categorizations can used allowing the reader to choose whichever categorization is most useful.) I dont like lists myself because, in this case, the list is too long and the categorization used (Informant codes, i guess) is opaque. – ishwar  (speak)  18:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't hate the idea of further categorizing chess openings, but also don't find it particularly necessary. I agree that the (semi)-open/close terminology is often misleading; moreover I think it's a bit anachronistic and isn't so widely used among chess players not named Hooper or Whyld. I wouldn't object to a threefold classification into king's pawn, queen's pawn, and flank and irregular openings. Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * To me subcategorizing openings further is just a recipe for stupid "genre wars" of the kind that plague music articles. I really don't see the point. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Cobblet (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @Cobblet: I think the Open, Closed, Semi-Open terminology is established pretty well beyond Hooper & Whyld. For example, Karpov wrote a series of books The xxxxx Game in Action.  (I like those books as collections of (mostly Karpov's) games, but many others dislike them as bait and switch since the opening coverage is certainly not systematic or complete, and Karpov says relatively little about the opening and instead is really interested in discussing the middle game.)  Of course that doesn't address whether or not those categories are anachronistic since the Karpov books are about thirty years old.  That said, I don't think most chess players find the terminology very helpful.  Diffusing the openings into subcategories unfamiliar to many chess players doesn't seem to make the openings easier to find than putting them directly in Category:chess openings.  If someone were to create non-diffused subcategories of Category:Chess openings so that openings would remain in the parent but could be put in one or more of the children as well I would think it was mostly pointless, but at least not actively harmful.  Certainly not like the moron who took Alekhine's Defence out of Category:Chess openings so he could instead put it in Category:Gambits.  (Yes, that actually happened.)  @Ish_ishwar: if you want shorter lists, look in Open Game, Closed Game, etc.  @MaxBrowne: re: genre wars—amen, brother.  03:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

AlphaZero & Leela
Can I get some extra opinions on whether the AlphaZero article should include mention of Leela Chess Zero? If you are unfamiliar with LC0, it's an open-source adaptation of AlphaZero, see Chessbase article for more details. Banedon (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See Talk:AlphaZero. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

List of chess gambits
I question whether this article is even worth salvaging. It is almost entirely unsourced and the material is better covered in other articles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No response? OK i'm going to AFD it and see what happens. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User category: Chess players by country
Hi fellows, do you think there is enough interest to create a new category for User category:Chess players by country with each country getting its own +category? IQ125 (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We have Category:Chess players by nationality. See also Category:Chess by country.  02:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no such namespace as "user category" namespace. As a side note, IQ125 has added a bunch of userboxes to the chess navigational boxes category. I have told him (twice) that userboxes are not "navigational boxes." As usual, he has twice blanked my messages and not fixed the mistakes. Given our past experience, if it's me that goes and fixes it, I presume a nonsensical edit war will ensue. Leaving this here should anyone else wish to fix. e.g. Template:User LiChess. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * By "user category" do you mean categories specific to Wikipedia users? If so, I do not think there will be sufficient interest. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus for renaming arrows in chess diagram tiles.
See this.

The various chess diagram tiles are named "File:Chess_(FOO)(piece color if applicable, either l or d)(tile colour, either l, d, or t)". The PNG files end with "44.png", while the SVG end with "45.svg". Now SVG files are used for Template:Chess diagram.

local symnames = { xx = 'black cross', ox = 'white cross', xo = 'black circle', oo = 'white circle', ul = 'up-left arrow', ua = 'up arrow', ur = 'up-right arrow', la = 'left arrow', ra = 'right arrow', dl = 'down-left arrow', da = 'down arrow', dr = 'down-right arrow', lr = 'left-right arrow', ud = 'up-down arrow', db = 'up-right and down-left arrow', dw = 'up-left and down-right arrow', x0 = 'zero', x1 = 'one', x2 = 'two', x3 = 'three', x4 = 'four', x5 = 'five', x6 = 'six', x7 = 'seven', x8 = 'eight', x9 = 'nine' }

Many arrows take up names for possible fairy pieces. (d, u)(See This)

In my opinion, we should rename arrow files to follow numeric keypad. local symnames = { xx = 'black cross', ox = 'white cross', xo = 'black circle', oo = 'white circle', y7 = 'up-left arrow', y8 = 'up arrow', y9 = 'up-right arrow', y4 = 'left arrow', y6 = 'right arrow', y1 = 'down-left arrow', y2 = 'down arrow', y3 = 'down-right arrow', y5 = 'left-right arrow', y0 = 'up-down arrow', yo = 'up-right and down-left arrow', yx = 'up-left and down-right arrow', x0 = 'zero', x1 = 'one', x2 = 'two', x3 = 'three', x4 = 'four', x5 = 'five', x6 = 'six', x7 = 'seven', x8 = 'eight', x9 = 'nine' }

Alternately, we can assign - for 'left-right arrow' and + for 'up-down arrow', In this case, we can assign 0 and 5 to diagonal arrow. Sharouser (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

interactive chess boards (rerererevisited)
WikiProject Chess/Interactive chess boards

We have two tools to display interactive chess boards in articles.

Yet somehow neither are implemented.

One of the issues last time was, I think, some tension and/or awkwardness over the fact that Kipod had been trying to get his tool implemented here for some time, and Fred sort of scrapped it in favor of starting his own project.

Looking at both of them again, I see no reason why we shouldn't implement both of them.

It looks like Kipod's makes sense for including a set of games (i.e. all games in a tournament or several notable games of one player), while Fred's is good for a single game or for creating a short animated diagram/gif (having made a few of these myself in photoshop, having a template to do so would be welcome).

It's pretty normal for volunteers to create different means of accomplishing similar goals, each with different use cases. It might be that one becomes more popular, but let's just get them done.

For real this time.

I've intentionally not pinged either developer here, since this is probably the 6th time we've tried to get this going, so I want to get discussion started before bringing them in again.

Here are the two main things I am not clear about:
 * 1) Development - What other features need to be added or bugs addressed before implementing?
 * 2) Implementation - What is technically required to implement these such that readers do not need to mess with their js/css?

&mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is nice. I hope it goes live. I would like to use it to make some kind of shogi version of it. – ishwar  (speak)  14:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Implementation would be a positive, no reason to stall any longer. Pinging the devs to get answers to your questions seems like a good idea. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * here is the deal: Fred's tool is much more modern and "correct", as far as html and display goes. however, his tool is not usable, since it requires the editor (aka "user") to describe the moves in a non-standard way, which pretty much guarantees it won't be used, or at least not widely used.
 * my tool (which is already active on hewiki for the last 5 years or so) uses more arcane JS code to display and animate the game, but it allows the editor to feed the data in standard (and readily available) format, i.e. Portable Game Notation, aka PGN.
 * ideally, you would want a synthesis: use my tool's logic to convert the PGN to list of moves, possibly in the format Fred's tool wants, and use his code for the display/animation.
 * Fred's code needs some serious work to achieve the required functionality: there are numerous "pgn viewer" tools floating around (including one mediawiki extension), and all use pretty similar interface: a chess board displaying the pieces at any given moment, algebraic notation list on the side, buttons for go to beginning/end, single move forward/back, animate, and optionally board rotate. in addition to the buttons, clicking on any move in the algebraic notation display, should advance the game to this state.
 * i am sure that all the chess aficionados are familiar with this "standard" - practically every single chess site has one, and they are very similar (main diff, as far as i could see, is leaving a "snail trail" for last move, that some of the tools sport).
 * my tool, while using somewhat "old fashion" html, support this de facto standard.
 * i am pretty sure it will take Fred all of one weekend to take my tool and replace the display/animation with his more modern approach. i do not think his tool, in it's current state, is usable.
 * of course, Fred does not have to use my code as a starting point - it won't be a huge challenge (but it _will_ be more than a weekend...) for him to make his tool usable all on his own.
 * i am not very active on enwiki, and i don't think i will advocate the viewer anymore - i am willing to assist once there is a decision one way or the other.
 * peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's start with something rather than nothing. Since kipod's pgn-based version seems to be fully functional and tested on hewiki, I say let's get that one implemented. We can always have a second option by implementing Fred's too; ditto a reworked version of kipod's should that happen, but we need something.

What we certainly don't want is to implement displays into articles that require users to mess with their css and/or javascript files, so what would be technically necessary to get it implemented here for display by default (first choice) or enabled simply via a gadget (distant second choice)? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * basically, 2 things:
 * a template that accept a PGN, or, (as in hewiki), a number of pgn sources,. something like:
 * change to common.js to examine the page, find if it contains any chess game, and if so, load the pgnviewer script
 * TBH, the 2nd step is an optimization: the alternative is to load the script unconditionally. we did this unconditionally in hewiki for several years. usually, the dwellers of VPT tend to object to add ~900 lines of JS unconditionally. it's considered to be "bloat", and generally bad form.
 * in hewiki, the script itself is managed as a gadget: he:Mediawiki:Gadget-pgnviewer.js. it's not a "real" gadget, in the sense that users can choose whether on not to load it. we just exploit the "gadget" mechanism (aka "resource loader") because it provides services like code minimization and some other conveniences.
 * tldr:
 * create a template, add 2 files to mediawiki space, and 4 lines to mediawiki:common.js
 * several years back, i created all this work on the test wiki, to demonstrate "what it takes". i can probably do that again.
 * peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * oh, one thing i forgot to mention, which some editors may find attractive: using this viewer, it is very easy to get the FEN[1] for every stage in the game, which then can be fed to Chess board (using the "fen" parameter), to display the board at this stage, without having to sweat over the tedious chess board template and feeding it all the pieces. for a demo, open Giuoco Piano, and navigate to the hebrew interwiki ("עברית" in the interwiki list. it's he:פתיחה איטלקית). the PGN viewer is about mid-page. notice the "games list" at the top, the controls at the bottom, and the algebraic notation to the right. at the top of the algebraic notation, notice 3 tabs (with hebrew titles). the leftmost is called "FEN". click any move in the algebraic notation, and then "FEN" - you can copy-paste this into the "fen" parameter of chess diagram to display the board. e.g., move 17d of first game in page: קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * [1] - not exactly the "FEN" - only the 1st part of it, which describes the board. the 2nd part, which tells you the game status, e.g. whose turn it is, and what's possible, is missing. luckily, the template only wants the 1st part...