Talk:Tal Gambit

There is currently a discussion on Wikipedia talk:No original research on whether chess engine analysis constitutes OR. If it is, then much of the content here

There is currently a discussion on Wikipedia talk:No original research on whether chess engine analysis constitutes OR. If it is, then much of the content here will have to go. youngvalter 14:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

cleanup

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I added the cleanup tag. I think this article needs a lot of work to bring it up to standard. First I think that all of the Crafty evaluations should be taken out. Secondly, I'm dubious about the play result percentages. General editing is needed too. Take the "recomended for ..." out of the section titles, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • I agree on all points. Removing the crafty evaluations (computer eval is pointless on move 3!, and more importantly WP:NOR also) was easy, so I did that for a start. Quale 04:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Agree, this article is hardly an encyclopedia article. A severely trimmed down version should either be merged with McDonnell Attack, unless we just merge McDonnell Attack in with the Sicilian Defense altogether. I don't like the McDonnell article much either, there are too many claims of one particular line being "best" based purely on result statistics, "The best black response is 2... d5, the Tal Gambit" needs to be reworded at the very least. The Crafty analysis doesn't hold up unless published somewhere, because it will probably give different results on different computers, making it unattributable (or unverifiable... I haven't followed the course of the policy debate the past weeks). Game result statisitics are published in game databases and are OK, but should not be used to condemn or promote a particular variation, since there may be other factors (strength of the players who try a particular line, and luck for instance.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I tagged McDonnell Attack last night. I found another one that used Crafty analysis - I'll have to find it again. Bubba73 (talk), 14:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
That one is rewritten, and I have redirected this page to the McDonnell. Perhaps some analysis from here could be used, but it looked awfully biased towards certain lines ("recommended for White" and so on...), history remains intact regardless. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Smith-Morra Gambit and Queen's Gambit Declined, Mainline Orthodox Defense also use Crafty evaluations. Bubba73 (talk), 14:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.