Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Photos

Edward Winter in Chess Notes recently wrote:

Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) notes that many fine portraits of chess masters (including Capablanca, Alekhine and Sultan Khan) can be viewed at www.corbis.com. The photograph of a young Capablanca (PL2114) was mentioned in C.N. 4575, with a comment about its date. Another excellent shot features Alekhine playing blindfold chess (U200877ACME), and we are aware of no chess publication which has used the photograph of Sultan Khan giving a simultaneous display (BE060856).

Krakatoa (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Article deletion

You might want to discuss the following chess set articles here:

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 26

Green Squares (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we not argue over the deleted articles now. Rather, expand at least one of the articles off-line and then create the article. Bubba73 (talk), 15:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to be some kind of "project coordinator" and I do not deal with coordination tasks more often than a wide variety of other contributors (Bubba73, Krakatoa, Philcha, SunCreator to name just a few), but as I happen to be often involved in the A-class reviews, if I can be of some help I would be glad to oblige. SyG (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't deal with coordination much either. Bubba73 (talk), 17:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New World and Olympic record for front-paging

Saxbe fix has just gotten front-paged after attaining FA status FOUR DAYS AGO! Sigh. Krakatoa (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You jealous ! ;-) SyG (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell? :-) Krakatoa (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tortoise Opening

Tortoise Opening has been changed to a redirect by an anon user. So either it needs to be restored or removed from list of chess topics. Bubba73 (talk), 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I see the redirect has been removed by blanking it. Since Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:No page blanks, I have restored the stub, but I am not satisfied with the current situation. The opening (1.e4 e5 2.Bd3) is very obscure, and I have serious doubts as to whether it deserves an own article. (43 hits on Chessbase database, many of them from U10 tournaments) Given our inability to get the unsourced Pickering Defense (1.e4 h5) deleted, I have some doubts that we will get this article deleted even if we wanted to; it is after all sourced. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I am the culprit responsible for blanking the page, thus leaving it a mere shell of an article (har har!). Sorry about the violation of Wikipedia protocol. Here is what I wrote over at Open Game (to which the anon had redirected the article) in explaining my deletion of the Tortoise Opening from that article:

    I have also deleted reference to the "Tortoise Opening", 2.Bd3?! as non-notable. That "opening" apparently appears on page 246 of Eric Schiller's 1998 book Unorthodox Chess Openings. See its index. Yes, that would be the same book that (as our article on Schiller notes) Tony Miles famously gave the two-word review "utter crap". Like the Boungcloud Attack [2.Ke2?], the Tortoise is not played in a single game of the 74,278 double king-pawn games (and 500,000+ total games) on ChessGames.com. To state the obvious, an opening that is never played is not notable. I do not think its mention in Schiller's book, which features a plethora of bizarre "openings" never seen in any more conventional source, makes it notable.

  • I continue to believe that the Tortoise Opening should be deleted. A few dozen games by under-10 players don't make an opening notable. But I suppose that White has a better game after 1.e4 e5 2.Bd3 than Black does after 1.e4 h5, so I appreciate Sjakkalle's point. If 1.e4 h5 is notable enough for Wikipedia, then I guess anything goes. Krakatoa (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The Pickering was eventually merged, with some support from the AFD. Regarding Unorthodix Chess Openings, there are other reviews of it than Miles' "utter crap", for example Baburin's which gives a mediocre two-star assessment but gives it some credit: "the book is well-written - with good balance between basic introduction to the principles of opening play, observations of rare opening lines and some factual material". I myself don't have that book, but from looking at the index on Amazon, the Tortoise seems to get one page of coverage (p. 263). Very thin. If it were nominated for deletion, I'd vote to delete it, I just don't know if we would get consensus to do so. The most likely outcome is probably merge back with Open Game.
    • Regarding the Boungcloud, I think that one should just go away. There are six examples of 2.Ke2? being played, with one win, one loss and four draws. Each of those four draws look like silly jokes (e.g. Wies Zimmerman - Dries Zimmerman: 1.e4 e5 2.Ke2 Ke7 3.Kd3 Kf6 4.Ke2 Kg5 5.Kd3 Kh4 6.Kc4 draw.), the win was in a U10 tournament which ends because Black overlooks mate in one, while the loss Joris Poignant-Axel Delorme from a French Team tournament for U18 also looks like it was played between two novices. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, but maybe all of these should get a brief mention in an article like unusual chess openings or unusual king pawn openings and that is all. Bubba73 (talk), 15:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hiashatar

i created an article on the mongolian chess variant hiashatar. i wonder if anybody has additional information on this game or can provide a drawing of the 10x10 board with initial pieces setup... Loosmark (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great. I will take care of that. SyG (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, here are the milestones I have defined that will be shouted on Wikipedia:Announcements:

• Category:Quality chess articles : 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, ...
• Category:FA-Class chess articles : 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, ...
• All articles from the WP:WikiProject Chess: 500, 1000, 1500, ...

SyG (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Max Weiss

Yesterday an anon user made a change to Max Weiss that I took as vandalism, changing his religion from Jewish. The same user just removed it again. A given reference lists him as Jewish. Is it our policy to list a player as Jewish, or is that not relevant? Bubba73 (talk), 02:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I see that there is a well-populated category of Jewish chess players. It includes even notorious anti-Semite and (at least as of 1961) Hitler admirer Bobby Fischer - who once wrote an outraged open letter to Encyclopedia Judaica demanding that they not classify him as a Jewish chess player, a request to which they, unlike Wikipedia, acceded. I suppose that George H. D. Gossip (author of the anti-Semitic book The Jew of Chamant), Fischer, and perhaps alleged Nazi propagandist Alexander Alekhine would regard a player's Jewishness as important and worth noting, but I don't know why we should unless it is somehow relevant to the article. Examples would include Samuel Reshevsky as a devout Jew refusing to play on the Sabbath, Emanuel Lasker having to flee Germany because he was Jewish, Boris Gulko effectively being excluded from the 2004 World Championship cycle because of his religion, and perhaps a player being an ardent Zionist. We don't note as a matter of course that a player is Catholic, Methodist, atheist, Muslim, etc. In Weiss' case, the article only had a three-word clause referring to Weiss "who was Jewish", which was then used as a basis to put him in two Jewish-related categories. IMO, the mere fact that Weiss was Jewish, without more, is non-notable and shouldn't be in the article. Krakatoa (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alert

I would like to suggest that the WikiProject Chess subscribe to the bot Article alerts. This would help us to get automatically informed when important events happen on a chess-related article. SyG (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What I do is at the article list of chess topics, the "related changes" lists all changes to those articles. I have a link to that on my desktop which I check when I can. This gives you the same information as a Watchlist, but you don't have to have all 3000+ articles on your watchlist. Bubba73 (talk), 19:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Bubba73. Just click here >>>Recent chess topic edits<<<. No watch list required. SunCreator (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Article alerts does something different, because it detects none editing situation like AFD's and RFC. SunCreator (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume it can be set up to list only events dealing with articles in our project. Bubba73 (talk), 00:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is the point. It acts as a signpost for a wide range of events, like PROD, AfD, GA-nominations, FA-nominations, RfC, DIK, ... That way if something special is triggered on a chess-related project we would be sure not to miss it. SyG (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read up on it. Is this something the project can do, and it puts a message on this talk page, or do individual editors have to do it? If it is something the project does, then go ahead! Bubba73 (talk), 16:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The mechanism is (I think): the WikiProject Chess subscribe to this bot, and then every week the bot will update the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Article alerts. See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts. It helps to know if one of our project is nominated for something (deletion, GA review, request for move, ...). SyG (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs to update more frequently than once a week, especially for deletions. But it sounds like a good idea. Bubba73 (talk), 17:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have launched the nuke and put the template on our project page. Now we have to wait for a few days to see what happens. SyG (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea. I've found several of the articles listed for deletion and almost all of them were by the related changes to list of chess topics and noticing it there. This will save some work. Bubba73 (talk), 21:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Article Alerts updates on a daily basis BTW, not once a week.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 11:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming that an article has to be tagged with our project for it to show up? Bubba73 (talk), 05:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

En passant

Someone please look at the recent change to En passant and give an opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 00:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it, as you had done earlier. The change was was overly wordy and just made it worse. 24.177.121.141 (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that the lead is not a lead in the sense that it's not a summary of the page. The IP editors amendment seems factually correct but it's rather long winded. It would seem sensible to attempt to contact the IP editor directly via the talk page otherwise the same reverting may continue for some time. SunCreator (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I also thought that it was too redundant and wordy, and I commented that in my reverts. But I had already reverted twice today... Bubba73 (talk), 02:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversions are still being made. Please take a look at it. Bubba73 (talk), 14:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I will add myself to the list of watchmen on this article to try to help you out. SyG (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

deflection and overloading

i just read these two articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overloading_(chess)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection_(chess)

and i have a question, what exactly is the difference between deflection and overloading? i ask because looking at the examples given on both pages, it seems to me that these 2 terms are used for the same thing: a defensive piece is deflected away. maybe the two articles should be merged. Loosmark (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand it (and I may not) is that they are closely related, but overloading may cause deflection. Deflection is causing it to move. Overloading may cause deflection. For a little more information see glossary of chess#Overloaded and glossary of chess#Deflect. Bubba73 (talk), 15:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

the link you give says: "A piece that has too many defensive duties. An overloaded piece can sometimes be deflected, or required to abandon one of its defensive duties."
if you look at the example given on the Overloading_(chess), the only task that the rook on f1 is doing is protecting f3. i don't think that the rook is given any new defensive task when black plays Re1. if white takes on e1 the rook simply abandons the defense of f3, its IMO a classical case of deflection. to me it seems that either: a) the article about overloading gives a wrong example or b) overloading and deflecting are one and the same. Loosmark (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The white rook is also protecting the back rank against ...Re1+, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 01:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

black rank doesn't need to be defended because white has Kg2-Kh3 escape route. Loosmark (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If the white rook isn't on the first rank then 1... Re1+ 2. Kg2 Rg1+ 3. Kh3, and then probably 3... Qf5+ looks pretty uncomfortable for White to me. Bubba73 (talk), 21:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion a real case of overloading would be something like this: lets say that black has a queen on f8 and that white has a queen on d2 which defends his rook on b4 and a knight on f4 and there is a pawn somewhere on the 4th file too (for example on e4). The queen is overloaded because it has to defend two pieces at once and if black has a rook which he can put on d8 attacking the queen it might result in loss of material for white. IMO deflecting is different in that it is not necessarily an overloaded piece which is the target plus it is usual achieved by a sac. For example white has pawns on f2, g2, h2 his king is g1 and his rook on a1. Black has a queen on b3 and rook on e8. Black can play Qa2 which attempts to deflect the rook from defending the back rank. Anyway to cut short i think the example giving here Overloading (chess) is in fact typical deflection motive rather than overloading. Loosmark (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Chess defines overload: "to burden a piece with too many defensive tasks. An overloaded piece commonly has to give ground." It doesn't have deflection (neither do Golombek or Sunnucks). Burgess gives deflection: "a tactical device by which an enemy piece is obliged to leave a particular square or line, with fatal causes". So it sounds to me like a piece may be deflected because it is overloaded, but not necessarily. So a piece can be deflected other than overloading it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is still that the article(s) we have here don't explain overloading and the difference with deflection well. Loosmark (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Does someone want to work on those articles? (I haven't worked on either of them.) Bubba73 (talk), 15:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the deflection article requires clearer examples. If I come across good example deflection I'd add them. SunCreator (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Today's feature article - First-move advantage in chess!

First-move advantage in chess is today's feature article! Bubba73 (talk), 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. SunCreator (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well well well. That's fantastic! Keep a close eye on it for the next 24 hours, everyone, there's bound to be a bit of vandalism.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Incredible ! A shame noone told ChessBase, maybe they would have written an article about that. By the way, how did you do that ? SyG (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I sent a message to ChessBase. And apparently the decision to feature this article on the main page was taken solely by the delegate User:Raul654, without any need for prior discussion. SyG (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything on ChessBase about it. Apparently they're not impressed, or they just don't work that fast. A little notice would indeed have been nice, not that I'm complaining, mind you. I wandered onto Wikipedia at about 14:30 Wikipedia time this morning and was (happily, to be sure) shocked to see the article on the front page. Thank goodness I'm such an addict that I never take a day off, or I might have missed it. Unfortunately, it didn't occur to me to take a screen shot. D'oh! I had been afraid that the article would never make the front page, since it really has no good date tie-in (Weaver Adams' birthday?!). Fortunately George H. D. Gossip, our anti-Semitic "grandpatzer" friend, has a birthday (December 6) and death-day (May 11). Krakatoa (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see that "First-move advantage in chess" became a Featured Article on June 27, 2008 and was front-paged on March 21, 2009 - so it had a "gestation period" of just under nine months (268 days, if my finger-counting is right), aptly enough. Krakatoa (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

chess, rules of chess, Glossary of chess and chess terminology had big spikes in activity that day. Bubba73 (talk), 18:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Krakatoa (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

and First-move advantage in chess had been having around 100 hits per day, but it had 71,500 that day. Several other articles had a spike too. Bubba73 (talk), 20:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) I was amused to discover that there is a site called wikipredict.com where people spend (virtual) money "buying" and "selling" "shares" of Wikipedia articles, which go up and down in value based on the fortunes of the article. I don't know how this works, but apparently an article that gets front-paged goes up dramatically in value. The current money leader, with a net worth of over $27 million, is a guy who just sold 4,174 shares of "First-move advantage in chess", most of which he'd bought at 19 cents a share, at $205.39 a share. http://www.wikipredict.com/ At last, a way to make some money off Wikipedia ... Krakatoa (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves." -- so what?

What's the point of putting the {{chess notation}} template right at the top of chess articles? I'm guessing that, for almost all readers, that notice simply gets in the way of the articles and so detracts from them.

To explain: I'm only a very occasional chessplayer, but even I am aware of the different notations, and I'd guess most occasional players are the same. And if I were not aware, it wouldn't make any difference. The only possible advantage would be for readers who have only ever come across another notation and might experience momentary discombobulation.

So how about only including such a template lower down in articles at the point where moves are described using one of the notation systems?--94.196.158.212 (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I see two points:

• warn readers who do not play chess that they are gonna see non-usual notations,
• give a link to algebraic notation for those who would like to learn about the notation (and come back to the article later), or those who would need a slight refresh.

SyG (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much in agreement with SyG here. There are often people complaining that our chess articles are unreadable or too technical, and if the reader doesn't know the chess notation, that complaint is true. The link to algebraic notation is an aid to these readers who want to learn how to read the article. Several people may know the rules of chess (how the pieces move), but have no experience with tournament play or chess literature. While they may have an interest in our chess articles, they may find the notation off-putting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the two S's. There are many millions of people who know a little bit about chess, but know little or nothing about algebraic notation (for example, most of the people who saw First-move advantage in chess on the front page yesterday). It's appropriate to let them know up front about the notation before they see an unexplained "1.e4 c5" and freak out. One could in principle put the template lower down next to the first appearance of notation, but inevitably writers would sometimes forget to do that, or someone would put something with notation above what had been the first place with notation - and forget to add the template to the new material, or the reader's eye would wander down to some notation lower down that wasn't accompanied by the template and the reader would get confused, etc., etc. It's easiest to just put the template in at the top of the article and be done with it. In fact, I put the template in new chess articles I'm writing that don't have any notation in them yet - they almost surely will at some point. Krakatoa (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a case to be made for putting the notice just before the first use of notation. This is mainly true in biographies where there may not be any moves until "notable games" near the end. This has been discussed before. However, I also prefer it to be at the top of the article. I think it needs to be there for people unfamiliar with it. Bubba73 (talk), 13:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

The following was left on the chess talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page, in its function as a tool for improvement, can unfortunately and inadvertently emphasize criticism of topic coverage to the point that the positive qualities of such coverage go unnoticed. I personally think, as a long time user of wikipedia, that the coverage of chess as a topic here is the broadest in scope, most skillful in pith, and overall the best documentary effort of any section that I have used on the site. I'd like to thank the authors for giving me some meager hope of improving from absolute hopelessness to the prospect of intermediacy as a player. N88819 (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC) 02:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That is just great ! I think a big chunk of these thanks shall be directly attributed to you, as you improved a lot the "technical" articles like Bishop and knight checkmate, Castling, Pawnless chess endgames and others. Yep ! SyG (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I had very little to do with B+N checkmate. Bubba73 (talk), 22:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List

Can the Wikipedia compile a list of USFA chess masters of the United States, when and where their titles were won; who they played etc?No-name-please (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Nf3

I noticed someone created a 1. Nf3 article. It does bring up an unresolved issue. Namely King's Indian Attack, Reti opening and Flank opening all have a claim to 1. Nf3 yet technically it's not really correct to say its any of them. So I don't believe it would be correct to use a redirect. What do others think? SunCreator (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the other transpo possibilities - QGD, QGA, Slav, Catalan, various Indian defs, ..., Ruy Lopez, Sicilian, ..., zzzz. IMO an experienced player would not look under "1. Nf3" because of this, and I doubt whether an inexperienced player thinks in algebraic. In addition to make the WP search work you'd have to create redirects fo rall the "mis-spellings", e.g. "1 Nf3" (w/o period). Simpler to have it deleted. --Philcha (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it should be a very short article (shorter than it is now), but be a little more than a redirect. Say that it can be the start of those openings (and list them) and that it can transpose into many others (and don't list them). Bubba73 (talk), 15:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The redirects have been in place for years, also the versions without periods and/or space, and I have not yet heard about any harm they have done. If you look at Article view statistics you will find that they are used sporadically (about 4-10 hits a week each). Redirects are really cheap, and are usually only deleted if they are confusing, offensive, nonsensical, cross-namespace, broken, novel, or very obscure (see WP:RFD#DELETE). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As expressed before, my opinion is that 1.Nf3 is the Réti Opening. I think the article 1. Nf3 should be transformed into a simple redirect to Réti Opening, or maybe even deleted. If we start to create pages with simple moves, we will never finish. For example, shall I create an article on 1.d4 d5 ? SyG (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a redirect to Réti is best. A simple note on the page about transpositions, as well as wikilinks to appropriate terms should cover all the bases. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Nf3 is the third or fourth most common opening move, and it can transpose into many things other than the Reti proper. Bubba73 (talk), 19:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue I care very much about; I'll gladly go along with the consensus. But MCO-15 has a table by opening moves. It lists 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 as the Reti. It lists "1. Nf3 2. g2 3. Bg2 , etc" as the King's Indian Attack. The Oxford Companion also has a table by moves, with a lot of things after 1. Nf3, but it says the same thing about the Reti. "Understanding the Chess Openings" is similar. It has single-line entries for 1. g4, 1. f4, 1. b4, 1.b3, 1. Nc3, but when it gets to 1.Nf3, it says "and now" and lists a bunch of possibilities. Bubba73 (talk), 20:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, 1.Nf3, the move which I in principle boycott when I'm playing chess. Whether it's because I think it's impossible to classify properly with a name, if it's because I like to keep the f-pawn mobile in case of a King's Indian, or if it's because I'm a sore loser after Antoaneta Stefanova beat me with it (in a simul) I'll leave to you to speculate. But I digress, the Oxford Companion to Chess calls it the "Zukertort Opening", but that is pretty much the only place I know about which uses the term. "King's Knight Opening" is another term I have seen used. Sources diverge on what is the "Reti Opening", because Reti's main idea was to challenge a ...d7-d5 advance with c2-c4, hence 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 is the Reti proper. However, I have seen the King's Indian Attack setups be referred to as "Retis" as well. If we are going to have an article on this subject, "1. Nf3" may very well be the best title because if someone opens with 1.Nf3, that is probably the most common term to describe the move. The 1. Nf3 title is an old redirect I created in 2005, along with a bunch of other redirects for the other 20 first-moves White has. They are of most benefit when dealing with the very rare moves, because not many will know what "1.Nh3" is called. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If this were 1st April I'd suspect you were taking the p..s about the " Ammonia Opening" 1.Nh3. --Philcha (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My vote is for deletion; on it's own, it's not an opening or a redirect to an opening, as has been made clear in previous discussions - i.e. the transpositional possibilities are endless and it therefore has little or no distinctive identity. The main alternative is to rename it the 'King's Knight Opening', which would render it a nondescript, generic equivalent to the "King's Pawn Opening" or "Queen's Pawn Opening". Another option, and probably the closest fit to anything scholarly is to run with the Oxford Companion's designation "Zukertort Opening". Historically, I believe Zukertort was the man who popularised the move 1. Nf3 as an integral part of a system he used (in part, a forerunner to the Colle-Zukertort System, but also with the option of the very risky Zukertort Gambit - aka Tennison Gambit 1...d5 2.e4 or Lisitsin Gambit - 1...f5 2.e4). Since then however, the move has become widely used, rarely to follow his system, but to retain flexibility, steer the game into unfamiliar territory, or keep the opponent guessing for a while, before transposing. Brittle heaven (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

1.Nf3 can transpose into any closed opening so there is no point of having a redirect let alone an article. unless we do the same for 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.g3... etc Loosmark (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We have done the same for all the opening moves you mention. 1.e4 points to King's Pawn Game, 1.d4 points to Queen's Pawn Game, 1.c4 points to English Opening, 1.g3 points to Benko's Opening. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) As I have previously said, I believe in a conversation with Bubba73, 1.Nf3 should of course be called the Nitrogen Trifluoride Attack. If that idea somehow fails to gain a consensus, I tend to agree with Loosmark. Krakatoa (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

On the principle of being bold, I have rewritten and renamed the entire article, and gone with the Oxford Companion convention of calling it "Zukertort Opening". Personally, I have no doubt that the opening move is notable (there is after all, a whole book called "Opening for White according to Kramnik 1.Nf3, Vol.1"). The slight problem is that the definitions given in the Reti Opening lead is a bit inconsistent with the Zukertort article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is best. Bubba73 (talk), 16:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am uneasy with that. The Oxford Companion is clearly a reliable and important source, but it is not the only one. I have an authoritative book calling 1.Nf3 the Réti opening, as does this site on ECO codes. I think we should gather all the reliable sources, then extensively discuss them, eventually choosing what the Réti opening is, and what the Zukertort opening is. SyG (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Zukertort opening? i play chess 20 years and i have never heard of it. but even if such an opening exists the first move cannot be an opening, its total nonsense. Loosmark (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is in The Oxford Companion to Chess. I think it is better to have it under this name rather than 1. Nf3. I like the way the article handles it. Bubba73 (talk), 20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

can please show me a game where this opening was played? Loosmark (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's 241,761 games. http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/A04_Zukertort_Opening SunCreator (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

don't make a laugh. Nf3 isn't an opening. have you ever heard Kasparov, Kramnik, Topalov or Anand say 'i played the Zukertort'? Loosmark (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Chessgames.com gives the sixth game of the 1971 Petrosian-Fischer match as a Zuckertort opening. Bubba73 (talk), 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

They are mistaken, its the Larsen. Loosmark (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

SyG, do you have the title for the book you mention? I am guessing it's the only contemporary book on the Reti as far as I can see, that is Nigel Davies' The Dynamic Reti, which I don't have. I did find the table of contents though ([3]), and the bulk of it seems devoted to the 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 lines. Being a repertoire book, it contains a few non-Reti lines as well including the symmetrical English (but Davies does not appear to call that "Reti"), and according to Hansen, the Pirc. The King's Indian Attack lines starting with 1.Nf3 are not covered in that book however.

Clearly, the lack of consistency between otherwise reliable sources is a pain here. The semi-"official" source on openings, ECO, is of no use when it comes to naming since it codes, rather than names, the different openings. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost ! My source is the following: Giffard, Nicolas (1993). Le Guide des Echecs (in French). Éditions Robert Laffont.

Giffard is a grandmaster, former French National Champion, and his book is the most respected general-purpose book on chess in the French language. SyG (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a History section to Réti Opening which makes it clear that 1. Nf3 alone does not define the Réti. Bubba73 (talk), 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

500 Master Games by Tartakower and DuMont (1952) gives 1. Nf3 as the "Reti-Zukertort opening", saying "An opening from the past, which became, towards 1923, the opening of the future." (page 636). So I think it is clear that before about 1923, 1.Nf3 was known as the Zuckertort Opening. Then 1... d5 2. c4 etc became known as the Reti. Bubba73 (talk), 00:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 1.Nf3 was sometimes, but not always, called "Zukertort's Opening" in the olden days:

• The index to Chess Openings Ancient & Modern' (1st ed. 1889), by Edward Freeborough and Charles Ranken lists Column 1 on page 255 as being "Zukertort's Opening". If one looks at that page directly, page 255, column 1 is a game Zukertort-Noa that began 1.Nf3 e6 2.d4 Nf6 3.e3 b6 4.Be2 Bb7 5.0-0 Be7 6.c4 0-0 7.Nc3 d5 8.b3 c5 9.Bb2. Page 255 itself just says "IRREGULAR OPENINGS" at the top, without mentioning "Zukertort's Opening".
• The tournament book of London 1883, annotating the aforementioned Zukerort-Noa game, just calls it "IRREGULAR OPENING" (p. 13).
• Modern Chess Openings (2nd ed. 1913) seems not to mention 1.Nf3 at all, which is weird since it apends four pages (pp. 104-07) on the less respected 1.Nc3, the "Queen's Knight's Opening."
• The Chess Player's Compendium by William Cook (5th ed. 1910) spends pages 284-85 (2 pages; 16 columns) on "Zukertort's Opening".
• The Fourth Edition (1925) of MCO has the newfangled 1.Nf3, under the heading "Réti's Opening" (pp. 143-45). The authors explain that 1.Nf3 "was often adopted by Zukertort, the games usually tranposing into the ordinary variations of the Queen's Gambit and Queen's Pawn Game. A few other examples will be found under the Irregular Openings ... The system of development for the first player, introduced by Réti a year ago is, however, quite new, and by its means he has achieved victories over the strongest players in the world." MCO-4, p. 143. Krakatoa (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Original research?

An editor of Hexagonal chess says that he is adding his own wp:original research to the article. Bubba73 (talk), 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch ! I removed the whole section. SyG (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes

User:Madchester seems to have made the unilateral decision to remove the flags from chess infoboxes. When I reverted him at Mikhail Botvinnik, he reverted me back, as he seems convinced that they violate WP:MOSFLAG, stating they are "not to be used for decoration".

However, my interpretation of WP:MOSFLAG is that it forbids the use of flags in main prose, but acknowledges their common use in infoboxes and sets a principle that they are not to be used to indicate birth or death place, but rather to show country represented in a sporting context. Surely, this is how we are using them (well, generally). I'm therefore quite keen to request that he leaves the whole subject of 'chess infobox use' to this group to manage.

Can I count on the support of Wikiproject members on this one, or should the whole flag debate be re-opened first? Of course I realise that not all group members are advocates of flag use. All comments are welcome. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't find the flags very helpful. I don't know all of the flags so I would rather have the name of the country. Bubba73 (talk), 16:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Brittle heaven, I reverted Madchester's revert of you. Krakatoa (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear that flags are a good thing. Personally they look nice despite WP:MOSFLAG saying otherwise. However the flag is an issue that can be rather tough. Read Talk:James A. Leonard for more. SunCreator (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Krakatoa for his help at Mikhail Botvinnik; however it seems that the flags had been taken from all the world champions, so I still need some views from other Project members, otherwise we will end up in the situation of "some have, some havn't" - at the whim of User:Madchester, and without any 'rhyme or reason'. To recap on my previous notes, I would ask people to read WP:MOSFLAG; it's quite short and to the point, unlike some parts of WP:MOS. For me, the main point is that the flags are intended for use in cases where the person's nationality is an issue, in a competitive (such as a sporting or military) sense. This fits the bill with most top chess players, who have represented their country. It was doubly so with Botvinnik and his contemporaries, who were part of a Soviet regime that demanded superiority and loyalty from it's players at every turn (with KGB agents lurking in the shadows). When they failed, as happened with Spassky and Korchnoi for example, there were major repurcussions - it doesn't get much more nationalistic than that! MOSFLAG gives the example of Paul McCartney—no flag warranted, because his 'Englishness' was not a major issue to him or the music industry. Had he participated in an official and noteworthy competition of UK songwriters versus US songwriters, then it may have been a different story of course. Similarly, SunCreator mentions James A. Leonard - again I would say as he did not represent the US or Ireland in serious competition, he needs no flags (remembering flags do not reflect birth - MOSFLAG is very clear on this). As a Civil War soldier, he was not a major player, so again, a Union flag is not warranted, but may have been, if he had been a prominent General, or someone else who had a significant role in the outcome. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Brittle heaven's analysis makes sense to me. The Soviet Union heavily subsidized its chessplayers, and used their triumphs to assert that its system was superior to that of the decadent West. C. H. O'D. Alexander wrote:

Throughout all the Soviet comments on their chess successes runs the theme that more than chess is at stake. For example, when Botvinnik won the world title in 1948 Pravda commented, 'Botvinnik was not simply playing chess, he was defending the honour of his country,' and in 1961 The Moral Code of the Builder of Communism stated, "Our task is to educate chess-players towards communist consciousness, love of labour and discipline and loyalty to the good of society."

C. H. O'D. Alexander, Fischer v. Spassky, Vintage Books, 1972, p. 46. ISBN 0-394-71830-5. "When Botvinnik won the Nottingham tournament of 1936, Pravda said in an editorial that his victory was a triumph of Marxist-Leninist chess". J. H. Donner, The King: Chess Pieces, New in Chess, 2006, p. 138 (originally published in De Tijd, June 28, 1972). ISBN 90-5691-171-6.

The entire world was well aware of the nationality of Bobby Fischer and the significance of his crushing victories over Soviets Taimanov, Petrosian, and Spassky. Recall that the U.S. Secretary of State/National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger even called Fischer in 1972 to urge him to complete the match against Spassky. There is also the recent book, Bobby Fischer Goes to War: How a Lone American Star Defeated the Soviet Chess Machine. Here's a quote from another book on the match:

Spassky, of course, was carrying a burden that Fischer was not laden with: he was playing not only for himself, but also for the Soviet government, the Soviet system. He represented an ideology. Soviet chess players were supreme, so the theory went, because the Soviet social, political and governmental system was so much better.

Richard Roberts, Harold C. Schonberg, Al Horowitz, and Samuel Reshevsky, Fischer/Spassky: The New York Times Report on the Chess Match of the Century, Bantam Books, 1972, p. 108.

Moreover, I believe that standard FIDE practice at international tournaments and matches is to have a flag by each player's board indicating his country. Nationality unquestionably has sporting significance in chess; this is not something that Wikipedia editors have made up to promote our own nationalistic or political agendas. Krakatoa (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Krakatoa; the analogy of the flags on the tables makes the point far better than I did (where was my brain hiding?). And as you ably demonstrated, we don't have to look far to find numerous other examples of chessic patriotism or even jingoism! I doubt anyone else is going to get excited by this and to be honest, it's not such a big issue ... but what the heck, I'll put the flags back anyway and see what transpires. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What to do with emigrés? And other "multiple nationality disorder" cases? Steinitz is a lulu - born in Prague, which was then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire; lived in London for 20 yrs; rest of his life in USA, and put a USA flag on his side of the table in 1886. Other notable cases include the Soviet diaspora - Korchnoi, Kamsky, etc. following the trail blazed by Alekhine. --Philcha (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as we know, flags and infoboxes both have problems of clarity and interpretation, but regarding flags, WP:MOSFLAG states that they are not to be used to signify where someone lived, or was born, but purely to show the country they represented in serious competition. So, was Steinitz engaged in much serious competition between nations? I couldn't see much evidence of this in his bio - hence I havn't replaced the flag(s) that was recently removed (- only my passing judgement though, so feel free to change it if you disagree). Korchnoi, on the other hand would qualify for Soviet and Swiss flags by my reasoning, but has only Swiss - so I'm guessing this is because the Korchnoi infobox editor interpreted "Country" as meaning "where they live now". As we can see, everything is open to interpretation and I believe the chess infobox has a few problems in this respect. Another example would be "Full name" - when you go in to edit this, it says "birthname" in the field; clearly these can be two different entities, so which is it? If I were overhauling the infobox, I would probably alter 'Full Name' to 'Birth Name', as the latter can give some useful extra info that might otherwise be a bit tucked away, whereas the 'full name' will almost always be contained at the start of the main body text. Examples of beneficiaries might be Anna Hahn, Andras Adorjan, Alexander Graf and many married women of course. Returning to the flags issue, 'Country' might be better (clearer) as 'Country represented' in the infobox. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your criterion "serious competition between nations" has a big problem - it would de-flag (ouch!) the 90% of Soviet GMs who never played international matches. "country they represented in serious competition" would de-flag almost as many Soviet GMs, as most never played individual international tournaments - but would make Steinitz American on the basis of 1886. Perhaps the issues are too messy for flags to be much use in chess, as individual competion is the basis of players' notability, GMs have always been fairly mobile, and there are enough GMs who would have to be awarded 2 flags. It's not like team games such as soccer, where you need a national federation to assemble a team.

PS re "there are enough GMs who would have to be awarded 2 flags", what's the record? -Philcha (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so much 'my' criterion, as Wikipedia's. But yes, some GMs who never played at international level would need 'de-flagging'. I don't think it's many, because we tend to only write articles about leading players. Alternatively, as you imply, we could just stop using flags altogether if we feel that individual competition is more often the issue in chess. Consistency and uniformity should be the aim, whichever way we choose to achieve it. A review of the infobox may be the answer, as this would clear up some of the ambiguities and focus our attention on what information we want to convey. Brittle heaven (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

notability of article

Would editors give an opinion of the notability of Kimberly McClelland? Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 14:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As a chess player, I don't think she is any more notable than I am. To analyze a few points in it

"In April 1993 at the age of 12, she won the Reserve section (under 1600 rating) of the National High School Championship in a five-way tie for first place,[1] becoming the first African-American woman to win a national chess championship."

No, that is not a national chess championship. A under 1600 rating section means that any notable players are not allowed to enter that section, so even winning that section isn't an indicator of notability. I won a U1500 section in a Grand Prix tournament outright once [4] and I don't think that makes me notable.

"During her chess career, she was a contemporary of future U.S. Women's Chess Champions Jennifer Shahade and Irina Krush"

Notability is not inherited, and in this case the inheritance is weak, merely being in the same age group as other notable players.

"...and was captain of the 1997 New Jersey High School Chess Championship Team."

The High School Chess Championship is an amateur event. Participation there does not grant you notability. The role of a team captain is not particularily outstanding, I was captain of my team in the 2008-2009 team chess season.

To gain notability as a chess player, I think one should be a national champion (outright, not "U16 champion" and so on) or a Grandmaster (International Master may be OK as well, especially if they have authored chess books). The USCF profile for Ms. McClelland [5] shows a rating of 1647 with a peak of 1668, which is classed as a "B"-player, and about 800 points below that level.

Finally, for the non-chess part,

"In the 1997 television movie The Ditchdigger's Daughters, she was portrayed by actress Saycon Sengbloh."

IMDB [6] confirms that Sengbloh played someone named Kimberly, but I cannot see that it is the same person as Ms. McClelland, and even so, it looks like a fairly minor role.

From what I have been able to find on Google, Ms. McClelland seems to be a very smart and intelligent lady, who has a commendable active participation in student life at Stanford, but sadly, none of it qualifies as being notable.

Regretfully, my recommendation is therefore to propose deletion or nominate for deletion discussion for this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I support deletion. Loosmark (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have PRODed the article. If this is removed I will bring the article to AfD. SyG (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I notified the original author. No one else had a significant contribution to it. Bubba73 (talk), 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The original author de-proded it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything I've seen indicates that Ms. McClelland is, at present, emphatically non-notable. A 1600 rating is extremely non-notable, and surely being a smart person who has attended fancy schools isn't notable. Hell, even I satisfy those criteria, and I'm way closer to notability as a chessplayer (National Master at OTB chess; Senior Master at correspondence; published two games in Chess Informant, both of which were theoretically significant; published two problems, etc.) than she is. I especially like the bit about being a contemporary of Irina Krush and Jennifer Shahade. Isn't everyone a contemporary of gobs of notable people?! Barack Obama and I are contemporaries, and I've shaken his hand on five occasions!! Krakatoa (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a contemporary of Anatoly Karpov (we've never met though). Bubba73 (talk), 01:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then, demand your Wikipedia article! It's unconscionable that we don't have a Wikipedia article (AFAIK) on a contemporary of Anatoly Karpov! Krakatoa (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Back in 2006, Magnus Carlsen said to New in Chess that I was the most original player he had seen. Can I get an article now? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have brought the article to AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

new development, the subject of the page protests deletion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kimberly_McClelland. Loosmark (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some discussion on the talk page of Kimberly McClelland too. Bubba73 (talk), 15:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone except McClelland herself agreed that the article on her should be deleted. It was. Krakatoa (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The person who wrote the book Ditchdigger's Daughters (which had her as a minor character) also defended her article. Bubba73 (talk), 16:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts and tags

I think the Article Alerts are very helpful, mainly with listing articles under AfD. But that doesn't cover other tags, such as cleanup, unreferenced, etc. There is User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings that lists such things, which might be a good thing to employ. Bubba73 (talk), 20:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added the tag that should get the listing within a few days. Bubba73 (talk), 15:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Chess Portal

Looking at other language wiki's a lot more use of the Chess portal. For example [7]. On the English portal we have it linked only on the Chess page and on a talk page template.

Would it be of use to add it to more articles?

The template is: {{portal|Chess}} SunCreator (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not. I suggest placing the portal link to the top priority articles first, that's where they should get noticed the most. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 08:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

One correction is needed

From GM Mikhail Golubev ( contactable at: gmi at europe.com )

Thanks for creating a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Golubev

1) One factual error needs to be fixed:

instead of: Peak rating 2548 (April 2003) correct is: Peak rating 2570 (January 1995)

(It is easy to check it in the Mega Database, or, maybe, at http://chess.vrsac.com )

Hopefully it can be done by someone! ...Personally I do not know well the Wiki system, and currently I do not wish to edit/create any Wiki pages.

2) Other suggestions & remarks:

- my page (with a brief chess biography & key facts on the very top) is at http://www.geocities.com/mikhail_golubev/ - I was born in Odessa - True, I shared 1st (with Valery Neverov) at the Ukrainian Open Championship in Yalta 1996. It can be added that I was declared the champion due to the better tiebreak. - a chess journalism is my main occupation already for many years, so more correct could be to put: Ukrainian chess Grandmaster (1996), JOURNALIST and author.

- just imho: ChessMetrics.com (or Chessgames.com) is not nearly as good for finding the best results & ELO performances (of modern players) as ChessBase Mega Database - the page has a good selection of notable games of mine, thanks for that! :-)

If there will be any questions, please contact me at: gmi at europe.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhail golubev (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mikhail, first please allow me to thank you for having written your book on the King's Indian, it is just a fantastic book ! Regarding your points:

1. the peak rating has now been corrected in your article.
2. your webpage has been added to the section "External links", your place of birth has been added, the mention of tiebreaks in Yalta has been added, your job as journalist has been added.
3. about ChessMetrics.com and ChessGames.com, one reason we use them instead of other online sources like the Mega Database is that these sites have the advantage of providing permanent internet links, so that we can create direct links to the page of interest (be it a game or a player profile).

Please feel free to comment your page as you like, advice is always welcome ! SyG (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhail golubev (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ilya Tsesarsky deleted.

Ilya Tsesarsky was proded and deleted. Not a problem, just wondering why we all seemed to miss it. Is there a way we can know about prods in the future before the article is deleted. SunCreator (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it did show up under Article Alerts, but not until about 4 days after the PROD, which was 1 day before it was deleted. Bubba73 (talk), 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Alerts was down for a few days too. Bubba73 (talk), 23:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see two problems with Article Alerts right now:

1. it is at the very bottom of the page, easy to miss. Maybe we could move it up to put it where all the other "...to do" stand ?
2. there is no indication of changes in our watchlists, so that every day you have to think to look at it.

SyG (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a change does not show up as an edit (it doesn't really change the project page). There is a "go to bottom of page" link at the top of the project page. We could put a "go to" that section link. Bubba73 (talk), 12:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

List of chess topics

List of chess topics has been renamed to index of chess articles. I didn't move it, but I think that is a better name. Anyone have any ideas on the subject? Bubba73 (talk), 14:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it's really appropriate to have this in the mainspace. SunCreator (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is very handy. Where else shoud it go - a subpage under this project? Bubba73 (talk), 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Another project has done this Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/watchlist SunCreator (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That does sound like a reasonable idea. I doubt the index article is of any practical use to anyone outside this project. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Finding Old Chess Books and Periodicals Online

I quote from the latest Chessgames.com newsletter:

Just about everybody uses Google, but you might be surprised to learn that thousands of old chess books have been scanned into Google's "Book Search" feature at books.google.com. For example, here is a small list of treasures that you can quickly unearth if you know how to search their amazing repository:

• American Chess Magazine, August 1898, Vol. II, Nos. 1-12.
• Lasker's Chess Magazine, Volume II, May 1905 to October 1905.
• Morphy's Games: Selection of the Best Games Played by the Distinguished Champion, in Europe and America (with Analytical and Critical Notes by J. Löwenthal), 1860.
• Chess Made Easy (including "The Morals of Chess" by Benjamin Franklin), 1820 edition.

Most of the chess books you can find on their site have diagrams, and some have beautiful black-and-white photographs from their eras. Not only can you peruse the books with the handy online reader, but you can also download them to your computer in Acrobat (PDF) format for printing or archiving.

To find books on a certain subject, just go to Google's Book Search and type in what you're interested in, e.g. "chess" or "Morphy". Not all of the books in the Google archive are viewable (some are copyrighted) so when you get the results, you will probably want to narrow your search by using the pulldown menu to display "Full view only" instead of "All books".

I myself was previously unaware of this possibility and I thought that this sounds pretty nice so I figured I'd share this one with you. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 08:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes google books is quite amazing. They also have many editions of the British Chess Magazine. However, which books you can open depends very much on the place you are. In Belgium for instance, the BCM's cant be accessed. There is a simple workaround possible though ([8]). Voorlandt (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Graphs

Greetings! It's been a long time since my last contributions to this project. I decided to fix this when I saw that the WikiProject Video games had neat graphs about their article statistics. So, may I present:

• 
  Chess articles by quality ([1])
• 
  Chess articles by importance ([2])

I have also added these images into the project main page, right under the statistics box. The links after the image descriptions here point to the original Google Spreadsheets I used to generate these graphs. If you would like to have editing permissions to them to keep the statistics up to date, email me and I'll send you an invitation to edit them. :) —ZeroOne (talk / @) 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. Bubba73 (talk), 17:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the growth in the last 16 months has been in Low Importance articles and mostly in Stubs. Bubba73 (talk), 18:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Great graphs. I don't understand in what way this is 'Google' related however. SunCreator (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) It is Google-related only in the sense that I used Google Docs to create the graphs. Google Docs can be used to collaboratively edit documents, which I find a lot nicer than emailing multiple copies of the same document around.

Bubba's observation about growth in Low Importance and Stub articles is correct. In a sense it is good because it establishes that we have already covered all the major topics. It also illustrates that we are getting more and more articles all the time, so this project is definitely alive and kicking. On the other hand, it would be great to see the amount of C, B and A class articles to grow, too.

—ZeroOne (talk / @) 07:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To me it seems like too much effort is being spent on low-importance stubs, probably mostly biographies. I think the graphs show that there are probably a lot of mid-importance and higher articles that need to be brought up to higher on the quality scale. Bubba73 (talk), 02:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again ZeroOne, and thanks for the graphs ! I am gonna see the half-full glass: all articles are assessed, and apart from the C-class/B-class split the absolute number of articles with quality has been steadily increasing. SyG (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you guys still active here, too. :) I actually just updated the charts to include April's figures and it seems that the rate of new articles per month has dropped. It remains to be seen if this is just a temporary anomaly. Anyway, if it is permanent, it means that we should now have more time to bring articles up in the quality scale, like Bubba suggested. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 09:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Endgame tablebase

The endgame tablebase article could finally be enhanced to bring it into A or even FA class. SyG published a comprehensive list of issues in the previous review and I thought we should use that one as a starting point. I have now addressed a few of them. I think it would be practical to discuss each point separately right below it instead of adding the messages after the whole list. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 12:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several possible place to discuss the points, and I agree the former review is certainly not the easiest. Here are some possibilities:

1. Discuss the various issues here, as you propose. But I am not sure this page is the most appropriate place to discuss changes made on an individual article.
2. Discuss the various issues on the Talk page of the article (a very mundane approach, arguably, but sometimes even the logical way has some points).
3. Create a new A-class review to discuss the issues, although articles are normally nominated after the improvements have been made.

SyG (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I wrote that message quite hastily so it seems I didn't get my point through. :) What I meant was that we'd discuss the points in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Endgame tablebase page, like I already did. I didn't find a note saying that the page is an archive and shouldn't be modified so I assumed I could just edit it. Another choice, in my opinion, would be to copy the list to Talk:Endgame tablebase and discuss the points there. Either way is fine with me, but I really think that that list should be used as the base for discussions. Unless all of those points are resolved, I don't think we should proceed to nominating it for a featured article. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 14:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

X-ray (chess)

I am concerned that the article X-ray (chess) (and also Glossary of chess#X-ray attack) may not be accurate. The article claims "It is different from the skewer, the pin and line clearance, with each of which it is often confounded.", but offers no sources. (I tagged it as unreferenced in April 2007.) Brace (1977 & 1989, An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess) says that X-ray is another word for skewer. Horton (1959, Dictionary of Modern Chess) says that it is an expression used in place of skewer by Fred Reinfeld and some other chess writers. It may not used much in the UK as neither Golombek or Sunnucks include it in their chess encyclopedias. The evidence suggests to me that "X-ray" and "skewer" are synonymous, and further that X-ray is the lesser-used term. If so, X-ray (chess) should be changed to be a redirect to skewer (chess) and the definition in Glossary of chess#X-ray attack should be changed to "See skewer". Does anyone have any definitive sources that could help here? Quale (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully Edward Winter clears this one up here [9] and here [10]. This supports the stance taken by Brace and others. However, there are many references on the net to this concept of "gaining increased control of a square through an enemy piece" and I must say, as a chess player, I find the term fits that particular attacking motif quite well, even though it is not a common term in the UK (as you pointed out). Perhaps the way forward is to simply describe its origins with the Winter refs and then go on to acknowledge its more recent 'hijacked' form, as a prelude to what is already in the article? Brittle heaven (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The term is not in the Oxford Companion to Chess or Burgess' Mammoth Book of Chess either. To me, an X-ray attack is a little more general than a skewer. A skewer wins the piece on the other side. Bubba73 (talk), 15:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

For instance, I would consider this an x-ray attack, but not a skewer. This is just my understanding, I have no reference for it. Bubba73 (talk), 17:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with 1...Qc5!= ("box" in Informant-speak)? You might want to add a black pawn at d6 or e7. :-) It does seem that this kind of tactic ought to have a name, although I agree with Quale that we need a reliable source for the name. Krakatoa (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I already had to go back and add a pawn at d7 to prevent ...Qc8. Bubba73 (talk), 16:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. Krakatoa (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, X-ray is not a very common chess term here in the U.S., either. I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone say it. As all of you have documented above, it's also not very common in the literature. In addition to the above sources, I couldn't find it in Divinsky's The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia, nor did I see it in a quick perusal of various books on tactics: Pachman's Modern Chess Tactics and Attack and Defense in Modern Chess Tactics, Vukovic's The Art of Attack in Chess, du Mont's The Basis of Combination in Chess, Golz and Keres' Chess Combination as a Fine Art, and Reinfeld's The Secret of Tactical Chess. It does seem a useful concept, but a source would certainly be nice. Even with a source, it does seem that the use of the term now given in the article is a minority view. Krakatoa (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the concept described currently at X-ray (chess) is a useful one, but the only sources I have been able to find say X-ray is synonymous with skewer. This is directly opposite to the claims our article makes now. Unless someone else comes up with a reliable source to back up what's in the article (it has been marked as unsourced for over 20 months), I am going to insist that it be fixed to follow the sources. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. See the arguments we made in the immediately preceding section about unsourced claims regarding nationality. Quale (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Krakatoa, I appreciate what you did in trying to improve X-ray (chess), but unfortunately this edit actually made the article worse. The only references you give that define X-ray say it is a synonym for skewer. Although you are very careful to not say that the other references for the examples you add support the unsourced claim that X-ray means something different than skewer, without such a reference those examples are not germane to the page. The examples provided for this supposed second meaning of X-ray have no foundation and are thus irrelevant. The end effect is to give the illusion that there are references that support the claimed interpretation even though there are not. This is a violation of WP:SYNTH as it is a synthesis of sources in order to support a claim not found in those sources. I'm pulling the plug on this page as its unsourced claims have been here far too long. An incorrect claim on Wikipedia without sources is unfortunate, but an incorrect claim on Wikipedia with sources is far worse if those sources do not actually say what is claimed or implied. Quale (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The sources I gave (both Richard Palliser and Georgi Orlov) say that the black rook on e8, in the first diagram position I gave, arising from the Black Knights' Tango opening, is "X-raying" the white pawn on e4 through Black's own pawn on e5. They directly support the usage of "X-ray" as indirectly attacking an enemy piece through one's own piece. I was careful to attach a fact (citation needed) tag for the third (alleged) meaning of X-ray - a piece supporting a friendly piece through another piece of the opposite color. I would be highly offended by your slander libel, but I'm sure it reflects only an innocent misunderstanding. Krakatoa (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons given above, I have un-redirected (to coin a word) the article, restoring the usage that is supported, and deleting the usage that is (as I had expressly indicated by my fact tag) unsupported. Krakatoa (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about two things. The minor point first: Palliser and Orlov do not really define X-ray, they merely use it. Extrapolating a definition from a couple of off-hand uses is risky, especially when those off-hand uses contradict the direct definitions found in the sources devoted to chess terminology. (Why do I claim the uses are off-hand? In part because the sources are not books on chess tactics or terminology but rather opening books. It is fair to presume that a book on tactics would be more careful about its terminology relating to tactics. Works on chess terminology could also be expected to demonstrate that care, and you know what those references say because you added them.) A lot of colorful language is used in describing chess games and in fact sporting events of all kinds which does not rise to the level of actual technical jargon used in the field. If two chess writers independently referred to a particularly strongly placed piece as a "monster" or a "bull", would that mean that "monster" or "bull" was accepted chess jargon? No. Fischer used some wonderfully evocative language in his chess writing, but much of it was not technical chess jargon. (I have a related beef about using "blitzkrieg" to describe Scholar's mate, see Talk:Scholar's mate and note that it was once an entire article on its own (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blitzkrieg (chess strategy)).) This being said I don't find the extrapolation to be unreasonable, but it is troubling that the the three direct definitions of X-ray you added to the article (this was a big improvement) say it's the same as skewer and then the rest of the article goes on to make a different claim. Now, the major point. The old article gave prominent mention to a claimed meaning that seems to have no support in any reliable source. You added an example of that supposed meaning. I think that adding that example made the article worse, by saying in effect: "No one has provided any evidence that this is what X-ray means, but if it does mean this then here's a position that demonstrates it." If you don't see why I thought that wasn't a good idea (WP:OR and possibly even WP:UNDUE), then I don't think there's anything else I can say. Thank you for removing the unsupported example. (I know you tagged the unsupported claim with {{fact}}, but I don't think that this tagging provided carte blanche to give the dubious claim even more weight by demonstrating it by adding an unsupported example to the article.) I'm sorry that you find that libelous, but this is one of my rare disagreements with you. I consider you the best writer and researcher to have contributed to chess coverage in Wikipedia in the last several years and I do not want to frustrate or annoy you in your hard work. (Yes, unfortunately it's probably too late...) I think you are having great success, and WP:CHESS has benefited greatly from your help. Quale (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Thank you for the clarification. However, I don't see what you meant by this:

The old article gave prominent mention to a claimed meaning that seems to have no support in any reliable source. You added an example of that supposed meaning. I think that adding that example made the article worse, by saying in effect: "No one has provided any evidence that this is what X-ray means, but if it does mean this then here's a position that demonstrates it." If you don't see why I thought that wasn't a good idea (WP:OR and possibly even WP:UNDUE), then I don't think there's anything else I can say. Thank you for removing the unsupported example.

I did not add another example of the unsupported meaning (i.e., that of supporting a friendly piece through an enemy piece). The old article had two examples of that unsupported meaning; I left them there, and noted by my fact tag that the usage was unsupported. For the reasons you note, I did not add a third example of that usage, although I had thought of a great one: Whiteley-Dunn - 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4?! 4.a3! Qh4? 5.Be3 Bc5 6.Qd3?? Nxf2! 0-1. The only example I added is the position arising from the Black Knights' Tango, of which you agree that you "don't find the extrapolation [from Palliser's and Orlov's writings] to be unreasonable". Thanks for the kind words about my work (most of it, anyway ...). Krakatoa (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now found sources supporting the usage of X-ray (in addition to as a synonym for skewer) as (1) attacking an enemy piece through a friendly piece and (2) defending a friendly piece through an enemy piece. I have supported the prior usage by referring to IM Orlov, IM Palliser, GM Rohde, GMs Kolev/Nedev, and Neishtadt's use of "X-ray" in that manner. I have supported the latter usage by referring to NM Pandolfini and IM Silman's use of "X-ray" in that manner. Bubba73 helpfully alerted me to Silman's discussion of the term. Krakatoa (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Beersheba

Does Beersheba need to be in our project? The article has one paragraph about it being Israel's chess center, with the distinction that it has the highest number of GMs per capita. But otherwise it isn't a chess topic. Bubba73 (talk), 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I would !vote for No. SyG (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note, what about Benjamin Franklin? There is a section of one paragraph about chess in the Franklin article. Bubba73 (talk), 00:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Beersheba has been removed from the project. Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Very belatedly responding to your query about Benjamin Franklin (just noticed it - sorry), that article now has a whole section, one paragraph long, on chess. I am its primary author. Franklin was the first known chessplayer in the U.S., the second known writer on chess in the U.S., and is a member of the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame, so I think his article should stay in the project. (He also happens to be the greatest American in history, but I admit that that's a matter of opinion.) Krakatoa (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Jaroslav Štúň

The article Jaroslav Štúň is listed as an orphan. The article is viewed about twice a day on the average, perhaps because it is linked from fairy chess. I have doubts about its notability. The article was created by user:Jaro Stun, who is probably the son of the subject. That editor has edited only that article and took the photograph used in the article. The names are also very similar and the editor was born in the same city as the article's subject. Please comment on the notability of this article. Bubba73 (talk), 01:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no knowledge in fairy chess, the only written source I own ("Dictionnary of chess problemists") did not list Jaroslav Štúň, and he does not seem to be in the FIDE Albums. SyG (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Have seen this persons photo before(not on wiki article). Can't think where. Not familiar with the name Jaroslav Štúň. SunCreator (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaroslav Štúň is far less notable as chess composer than Ľudovít Lehen, whose article was subject to deletion debate and was kept, yet not easily. Also the look at the list of the most successful Slovak chess composers in (currently as of years 1914-2003, left column on SOKŠ page) with Lehen included and Štúň missing hints something. --Ruziklan (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have PRODed the article. SyG (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mamedyarov/Mammadyarov name change

Hi - I have just asked the editor who moved Mamedyarov to Mammadyarov to explain his reasons. In the meantime, it might be helpful to have a consensus view. All of my English language texts use Mamedyarov, as do FIDE. A Google search says 53,000 hits for the former as against 2,000 for the latter. Am I missing anything? Thanks Brittle heaven (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have asked User:Parishan to post his view here (or see my talk page). He has technical/transliteration reasons for the change. However, I am conscious that Wikipedia encourages the most popular (English language version of the) name to be used, for example the name that would get the most hits on a search engine. WP:Naming conventions (common names) gives some guidance. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NC(UE) might be even more to the point: "Established systematic transliterations (e.g. Hanyu Pinyin) are preferred. Do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one; thus, use Tchaikovsky or Chiang Kai-shek even though those are unsystematic." It all depends on what we should take "common English form" to mean. For people as well-known as Tchaikovsky, it's pretty clearcut. For lesser-known people, knowing how to apply this guideline gets really difficult. I remember a little discussion of this kind at Talk:Leonid Yekimov last year (not to mention the animated 2006 hockey player diacritics debate). —JAO • T • C 10:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning is convincing enough to me. The common name in English is Mamedyarov by an outstanding margin, so we should stick to it. SyG (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles with little chess content

There are some articles which are in the chess project that have little chess content. As an example, the article William McCrum has one sentence mentioning that he played chess for his county. I've removed one or two such articles from the project and from index of chess articles, but I think we need a policy. I think that articles with so little chess content should be removed from the project and from the index of chess articles. Bubba73 (talk), 16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a proposal for a criterium: an article shall be in the scope of the WikiProject Chess if and only if its Lead, once fully developped according to WP:LEAD, would contain a mention of chess. SyG (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Bubba73 (talk), 17:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. Articles that currently have little chess content may have more in the future. I don't see the harm in adding a project tag - what else is the "low importance" level for? Obviously one must draw the line somewhere, but I noticed for example that Andrew Bonar-Law has been recently removed, which I disagree with -- he may only have been an amateur but he was a strong player and his interest in chess is easily sourceable. He may be the most notable chess-playing politician, for what that's worth:) Anyway, he's the sort of person I would keep in the project, personally.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed that one because the only chess content was "He also became a very able chess player." If an article like that has more chess content in the future it could be added to the project. My feeling is that is too little chess content to be in the project. Bubba73 (talk), 19:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Bubba73 and SyG on this. If chess was a very minor part of someone's life and none of their actions had much impact on the history or theory of chess, they should not be our concern - we have enough to do. I'd probably exclude Nicholas II of Russia even if it turned out he did confer the title of GM on the top 5 at St Petersburg 1914.--Philcha (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if an article about a person had one line saying that they lived in Texas for a year, I would not expect that article to be in the Texas project. Boris Spassky mentions that he plays tennis, but that article isn't in the tennis project. Bubba73 (talk), 20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to labour the point but Bonar Law was a much better chess player than Spassky is a tennis player. He was close to master level. Just because the article only has one line on chess at the moment does not necessarily mean it is out of our scope.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley will be making a comeback then. SunCreator (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of a possible criteria that a person would have some games at chessgames.com to be included, but there probably are some exceptions to that (both ways). Bubba73 (talk), 02:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley does have a full section called "Chess", so I think it's valid to include him in the project. How about including articles that contain the word "Chess" in one of the headers, articles that have a mention about chess in the Lead and articles that have, say, three or more sentences about chess? As a general comment, I think Bubba's original initiative to remove certain articles is very much supportable. Another choice would be to introduce a new importance class, "barely notable", to which certain nowadays Low-class articles could be moved. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 08:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Would support the use of the {{Bottom-Class}}. It's used in a few other wikiprojects like WikiProject Cricket. SunCreator (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to comment on the criterium I proposed: the reason why I added "once fully developped" is precisely to take into account people that have no chess content for the moment, but that ultimately (i.e. once developped to be at least a good article) would have a significant section on chess that would be summed up in the Lead. For example, let's imagine someone creates today a stub on Alexander Goldin, only mentionning he is a fellow of the Moscow Institute of Technology. Clearly the article does not contain any chess content, but clearly regarding the criterium he ought to be include anyway, as a fully-developped Lead on him would undoubtedly contain a lot about chess. SyG (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good criteria but it's still somewhat vague. For example, I find it moot if chess should indeed be mentioned in the Lead section of the Aleister Crowley article. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 09:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If we made use of {{Bottom-Class}}, my suggestion would be to use this for articles that are NOT notable from the chess on it's own. SunCreator (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The introduction of {{Bottom-Class}} is a good idea. i support it. Loosmark (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Humphrey Bogart is an interesting case. I knew he played, but so do a lot of people. I don't think everyone who plays needs to be in the chess project. However I just checked his article, and he was more involved than I thought. There is a section on chess with two paragraphs. He probably should be in the project. Bubba73 (talk), 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not against the introduction of the Bottom class, but please bear in mind it is a non-standard class not recognised by the "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team". That being said, I do not see where the introduction of this class would hurt our project or Wikipedia. For the moment I count two positive votes (SunCreator and Loosmark), what do others think ? SyG (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, bottom class could hold the ones I was concerned about. People and places that somehow have something about chess in the article, but aren't primarily known for chess. Bubba73 (talk), 16:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Rob Hutchison is another candidate. Bubba73 (talk), 17:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If we put these articles with only a mention of chess in the Bottom importance category, I suggest that we do not list them at index of chess articles. Bubba73 (talk), 17:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

SyG It's through "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team" that I found bottom class, it's recognised now Template:Grading scheme and is due to be part of the assessment bot - see User_talk:WP_1.0_bot/Second_generation#Non-standard_importance-types SunCreator (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's go with it then. There aren't that many I know of to go in there right now - the ones mentioned above plus Beersheba. Bubba73 (talk), 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want a few more, there are plenty of candidates in the List of chess players - Famous people connected with chess section. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to use it, just unclear at the moment on what criteria {{Bottom-Class}} would cover. SunCreator (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bottom-importance is used by the Dungeons & Dragons Wikiproject and WikiProject_Rocketry. SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a proposal for the definition of this class: The Bottom importance class is used for articles that are not notable for chess aspects, but for which chess is a notable aspect. I don't know if it is clear, though. SyG (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) CJ de Mooi is another one I would put in that category. Bubba73 (talk), 14:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how the introduction of the bottom category would change anything on the original concern of User:Syg. Or is the suggestion to include in the list of chess articles only articles with importance higher than low? IMHO this will only make the maintenance harder, and I feel far too much time is already spend within this project on administration and structure, rather than trying to improve articles. --149.139.61.217 (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

With the Bottom importance, I think that only articles higher than Bottom would be included in index of chess articles. Articles that have little chess content (often only one sentence saying that the person plays chess) would be in that group. Bubba73 (talk), 15:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To keep it simple bottom articles don't require to be listed in index of chess articles as having them in the watchlist would perhaps be an overload; but instead if anyone is interested in them they can be found in Category:Bottom-importance_chess_articles. SunCreator (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To comment on what 149.139.61.217 said... At least this project is quite unanimous with its decisions so working with administration and structure is a pleasure. And I was the one to create the "This user thinks that Wikipedia has become too bureaucratic" userbox, so this is a lot when coming from me. :) Of course, I would also like to see more time spent on improving the articles, but hey, I don't really do that myself either so I can't blame the others.

Also, for what it's worth at this point, I support the bottom-class, SyG's proposed definition and the omission of bottom-class articles from the index of chess articles. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I also support SyG's proposed The Bottom importance class is used for articles that are not notable for chess aspects, but for which chess is a notable aspect. SunCreator (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, Bottom importance now has about nine articles in it, including all I know of that should be there except one. I've removed them from the Index too. I added Aleister Crowley but it was the eleventh project and the Banner system seems to allow only 10. Bubba73 (talk), 21:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrected Aleister Crowley. Change of syntax allows more projects. SunCreator (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to put eight queens puzzle, knights tour, and rook graph, king's graph, knight's graph, Rook polynomial, longest uncrossed knight's path, etc in the Bottom category. What do you think? Bubba73 (talk), 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For eight queens puzzle and knights tour, I am hesisating. For the others, certainly. SyG (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I left those two. The others have been changed to Bottom and removed from the index. Both of these are much more common than the others. I think Knight's tour has more justification than eight queens for being above "Bottom", since chess players demonstrate it from time to time. But I am still uncertain about both of them, because of lack of real chess content. Bubba73 (talk), 01:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Technical details

For the technical aspects, I have implemented the "Bottom" class in the template Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality statistics, but we need to wait for 2-3 days to see if it works, as I had no opportunity to test it.

And SunCreator implemented the "Bottom" class in the Template:Chess-WikiProject. SyG (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Chess articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	Bottom	Total
Quality
	FA	0	3	0	1	0	4
	A	0	0	1	1	0	2
	GA	11	4	6	16	6	43
	B	13	28	37	44	8	131
	C	23	98	120	259	15	522
	Start	0	76	530	1781	56	2475
	Stub	0	17	216	3820	28	4121
	List	2	2	17	77	4	105
	Total	49	229	937	6084	121	7420
Unknown importance: 85					Unknown quality: 5

Fast updating article Assessment statistics above. None column and unassessed row is not created in this method but extra Unknown information on final row end will locate anything missed. SunCreator (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That is just great ! I have implemented your code in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Assessment statistics, I have added it in the navigation bar (at the top of the present page), and I will set it on the WikiPedia:WikiProject Chess main page. SyG (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And now the table on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess main page has the extra feature that any combination of importance and quality can be clicked to see the articles in this intersection ! SyG (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that is tremendous! I have previously wished that we had that feature, and you have magically granted my unspoken wish! Now someone who says, for example, "I want to find C-Class Top-Importance articles and improve them" can immediately find all such articles. Krakatoa (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is good. Bubba73 (talk), 03:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note you should thank SunCreator in the first place, as he was the one to spot that some other WikiProject had this feature and to investigate how it worked. Please note also there may be about 5-7 articles in the 3000 that are not in the intersected categories, but SunCreator and myself have not been able to understand why. SyG (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Possible criteria for "bottom importance":

Biography - no games at ChessGames.com. Possible exceptions for president of FIDE, etc.

other articles - no chess moves in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 04:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)