Talk:USSR and Russia versus the Rest of the World

Table?

Would it be better to put the match-ups in a table? Bubba73 (talk), 05:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think yes, if you can find an attractive way to do it. Does CL have a good layout we can use as a model? Quale (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but I was thinking columns for: Board number, USSR player, score, World player, country. It would make it easier to read. Bubba73 (talk), 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Following is the layout used on Playchess server for Scheveningen tournaments. The ChessBase layout has the Russia playernames vertical (difficult with tables):

            RUSSIA           
            1. Khalifman     
            | 2. Karpov      
            | | 3. Grischuk  
            | | | 4. Svidler 
WORLD       | | | |         
1. Radjabov ½ 1 0 0          
2. Smirin   ½ 1 ½ ½          
3. Polgar   - 0 0 -          
4. Short    ½ 0 ½ ½          

_└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be good for the third tournament - much more concise. Rather than listing the Russian names at the top, simply put 1, 2, 3, ... and give a legend at the bottom with the names. The first two tournaments could be put in a table too. Bubba73 (talk), 01:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like a format that abbreviates the names, for example

World		Russia
		Kha	Kar	Gri	Svi
1	Radjabov (AZE)	½	1	0	0
2	Smirin (ISR)	½	1	½	½
3	Polgar (HUN)	–	0	0	–
4	Short (ENG)	½	0	½	½

Wikilinks give the full names in balloons on mouse over. On the other hand, maybe this works better for small round robins, as then it's symmetric—the names abbreviated at the top are given in full down the left side. Here one set of names is given in full and the other abbreviated, and the choice is arbitrary. Actually here the choice wouldn't be arbitrary if we used flags. (Fiddled around a bit to add flags to try it out.) Not sure it looks quite right yet. Quale (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Official?

The article says "There have been three official chess matches featuring ...". As far as I know, there have not been any such unofficial matches, so the word "official" can be taken out. Right? Bubba73 (talk), 06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree again. Official is redundant. Sometimes slight redundancy can help understanding, usually it's just wordy and gets in the way. This gets in the way. Quale (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I officially removed it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Billed as?

Article says "was billed as 'The Match of the Century' " - was it called that beforehand? In Chess Life, the best I could tell is that it was called "the great match" until the June 1970 issue (reporting after the match), so was it really billed as the "Match of the Century"? Bubba73 (talk), 06:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Play it cool

Chess Life, July 1970 article by Miro Radojcic, pp 368-70, "Observation Point: A Sentimental Journey". Page 369 - "The way it was, the Soviet captain had the oppertunity to play it cool; thus it happened that he put Botvinnik versus Matulovic, Taimanov versus Uhlmann and Keres versu Ivkov - in all three cases exposing the members of the world team to that most uncomfortable business of having to play opponents against whom, for one reason or another, they had never played well in the past." Bubba73 (talk), 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

flags in 1984

In the 1984 table, I don't think the column of flags is needed for the USSR players. Bubba73 (talk), 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think they just balance the table and give the casual reader an at-a-glance appreciation of what the tables are about. But it's hardly important either way, so I'd be happy to go with the majority verdict if someone else has an opinion. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Let other people weigh in. Personally, I'd rather have the three-letter country codes rather than flags. I don't know all of the flags. Bubba73 (talk), 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a terrible suggestion. Of ccourse the flags shuld remain. Otherwise, this is yet another way to allow Russia to coopt positive achievements of other nationalities through the ignornace (sometimes willful) of the west. See my section which recommends splitting this article (below). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.115.119 (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs two seperate articles or renaming

What the heck does 'Russia vs the rest of the World' have to do with 'USSR vs the Rest of the World?' Answer: not much. In the former, Russians from Russia took on chess players from throughout the world. In the latter, citizens of several constituent republics made up close to half (I didn't count exactly) of the participants. To have Russia coopt the historical legacy of those players' participation is misleading, unfair, and wrong.

Suggested solution: 1. make seperate articles for 'Russia vs the Rest of the World' and 'USSR vs the Rest of the World' along with a disambiguation / divergenece page titled 'USSR and Russia vs Rest of the World' 2. or, less preferably, rename this article to 'USSR and Russia vs Rest of the World'

What must be changed: 'Russia (USSR)...' This implies that Russia is the inheritor of the accomplishments of those who played for the USSR before. This is wrong on many levels, though, if we're unlucky, we'll get some Russian jingoist popping up here who will tell us (as I have seen on other threads) that, for example, because Russia got most of the Soviet Union's embassy properties, that they are the inheritors to any and all legacies under the soviet union. Right - I'll believe that one the day they build a memorial to Stalin's victims too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.115.119 (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Agreed that the old name was awkward. Just used solution 2 because this easier. Bever (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

USSR vs Rest of the World: Madrid 1988

Why nothing is about USSR vs Rest of the World: Madrid 1988 [1] Instruktorek (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It was at rapid time controls instead of regular, but I think it should be in the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

In 2002 played rapid time too....Instruktorek (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

USSR dominance starts when ? Try 1948

The article once stated that the USSR dominance began in 1927 when the Russian Alexander Alekhine became world champion (and mentioned Max Euwe as the only break in this run). Alekhine was an established world class player and credible future world championship contender with his third place finish in the St. Petersburg 1914 chess tournament. He left Russia in 1921, never to return. The USSR was not founded until 1922 notwithstanding that the revolution started in 1917, still at least three years after Alkehine's emergence on the world chess scene. He can hardly be said to have been "produced" by the USSR, and was in fact denounced as an enemy of the state in the 1930's. It is a bit too much like Soviet party line to adopt (or is it "rehabilitate"?) him , clearly a product of Czarist Russia, as the first Soviet world champion in the context of the USSR vs The Rest of the World match.Jszigeti (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)