Talk:Yakov Estrin

inline references

Harvard referencing is an inline citation, see Wikipedia:Inline citation, which says "Harvard reference, i.e. (author, date), is the simplest way to cite sources not in the World Wide Web, by quoting these after the sentence." Bubba73 (talk), 00:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• True, and I generally wouldn't edit an article just to change citation style from Harvard to footnote/endnote. In this case I was adding a category also so I took the opportunity to use endnotes (but botched the edit a bit anyway). The main advantages of endnotes over Harvard referencing is that the endnotes are shorter and less obtrusive in the article, and Harvard referencing is unfamiliar to many readers. (Of course if they never see Harvard referencing in any articles it will always remain unfamiliar, so that's a good reason to use it too.) Harvard definitely has the edge if you need to cite several different sections of the same work at different places in the article, although the Harvard refs can be put in the endnotes also instead of directly in the text. I did not intend to suggest that the Harvard referencing format was not satisfactory. If you want to change the referencing style back to the Harvard referencing you originally used that's fine. Quale (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• I forgot to also mention that one thing that I don't think looks very good is to mix Harvard references with footnnotes/endnotes, unless the endnotes are really discussion rather than just another type of reference. The fact that Harvard refs sometimes don't work well for web citations is a possible reason to use endnotes throughout. Quale (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I don't like Harvard referencing at all-- I think it looks very obtrusive having them in the text-- but I understand it is an acceptable format so I guess I'll have to get used to it:) I'd never really come across it on Wikipedia before I started working on chess articles. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to change the references back, and I also think that a mixture of styles within an article doesn't look good, except that even I usually use the footnote style for a reference to a website.

Back when I wrote term papers in school we used Harvard referencing. The first reference I noticed in Wikipedia (a couple of years ago) was a Harvard reference on the IBM 360 computer. Bubba73 (talk), 14:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

GM title

Gaige or "Oxford companion to chess"[1] present him like a grandmaster. The following sources object to that statement calling him IM only. I believe that Gaige is wrong.

• Anatoly Karpov : Chess: an encyclopedic dictionary, Sovyetskaya encyclopediya, Moscow 1990, page 511, ISBN 5-85270-005-3 (in Russian)
• Willy Iclicki: FIDE Golden book 1924-2002. Euroadria, Slovenia, 2002, S. 92
• Olimpbase ELO lists [2] Dsds55 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources say that he was awarded the GM title in 1984, when he was 60 or 61, so it was probably honorary instead of earned. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not a great achiever at over-the-board chess, but a few players were awarded these 'emeritus' titles in the early eighties and you would imagine Estrin would be the perfect candidate - a long standing IM, GMC and ex-world Champ at Correspondence. Iclicki's Golden Book is very error-prone and Mr Bartelski (Olimpbase) deals with so much data, I'd be surprised if there weren't a few errors creeping in here and there - in fact, Estrin's Olimpbase entry for 1984 does acknowledge that some data is missing. If Whyld and Gaige (Guinness Chess; The Records and Chess Personalia) both think he was made a GM in 1984, then that's quite compelling evidence, I'd say; it's not like his name could be confused with another that is similar. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

See the German wikipedia list of honorary GMs: de:Liste der Ehren-Großmeister im Schach. I'm not sure what they use as data sources, but their list of GMs is more complete than ours. Sometimes Gaige indicates honorary titles in Chess Personalia, but Estrin is listed just as "GM 1984" so clearly the book doesn't always make this distinction. If we get a good source we should indicate in the article that the 1984 GM title award was honorary. I actually think the titles infobox should list the title years, so Estrin should have multiple title entries: IMC 1965, GMC 1966, IM 1975, HGM 1984. (Or maybe GMH 1984—I'm not sure there's a standard abbreviation for the honorary/emeritus titles.) Quale (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

His IM title might be honorary too - he was about 52 when he got it - old for becoming an IM. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 21:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The only place where Estrin could possibly obtain GM title in 1984 was 55th FIDE congress in Thessaloniki. There is an extensive report by GM Krogius in "64 - Chess Review" 02/1985 with names of Soviet GMs, IMs and even IAs who were awarded titles at that event. Not a single word about Estrin. In his obituary ("Chess in the USSR" 04/1987) one reads about chess player who "earned IM title". Then the last book of Estrin "The King's Gambit" printed in 1988 with foreword from Mikhail Tal. Tal writes about untimely death of Estrin repeating the same old "ICCF Grandmaster, FIDE International Master" stuff. Actually, I have not seen any sources in Russian, which confirm Gaige findings. Dsds55 (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I must agree that the weight of evidence is shifting away from Gaige/Whyld. I can't find anything that positively corroborates the 1984 GM award. For instance, British Chess Magazine mirrors what you say of the Krogius (Thessaloniki 1984 FIDE Congress) report. It even states that honorary GM titles were bestowed on Puc and Book. BCM's obituary for Estrin in 1987 again gives no mention of a GM title, yet mentions Alatortsev's honorary GM title in his obituary on the same page. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest that we take out the GM title text but put in a footnote that a few sources say that he got the honorary GM title in 1984. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I found one link from BCM with GM title mentioned[3]. Dsds55 (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's confusing. The BCM reference you found was published in 1988, which certainly means that it didn't get the GM title claim from Wikipedia. Gaige's Chess Personalia was published in 1987, so the BCM article could have taken it from there. In fact I think Hooper & Whyld probably took the 1984 GM title claim from Gaige, which means that all the GM title claims might actually stem from one source. Based on your research I think you are right and the 1984 GM title claim that I reinserted into the article is an error. I was going to suggest that we change the text to indicate the 1975 IM title and footnote it to explain that a small number of sources (Gaige and Hooper & Whyld) indicate that Estrin was made a GM in 1984, but that the GM title is not supported by most sources. Russian sources (list the sources) show that he received only the IM title for over-the-board play, and reports of the 55th FIDE Congress (Thessaloniki 1984) (list the reports) say that only Puc and Book received honorary GM titles that year. Now I'm not sure what to suggest. Thanks Dsds55 for your diligent research trying to make sure that we get this right. Quale (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Whyld's Guinness Chess: The Records was however published in 1986 and so pre-dates Chess Personalia. All a bit mystifying, as both authors have reputations for meticulous and exacting work. Meanwhile, I should add that the FIDE Rating lists (from Sahovski Informator, 1984-1988) all give Estrin as an IM only. My BCM reference for the Thessaloniki FIDE Congress report was April 1985, p. 159, should anyone want to include it in a footnote. Brittle heaven (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaige may have shared early drafts of Chess Personalia in facsimile. I seem to recall seeing a reference to at least one of Gaige's books being shared with others before publication. Admittedly this is just speculation, but Whyld is certainly someone Gaige may have afforded that courtesy. Quale (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources I used were Krogius report (Nikolai Krogius, "At the FIDE Congress", 64 - Chess Review, 2/85, pp. 2-3), Estrin`s obituary (Chess in the USSR, 4/87, p. 29) and his book "The King's Gambit" (Igor Glazkov and Jakov Ėstrin, Korolevskij gambit, Moskva, Fizkultura i Sport, 1988, p. 4) Dsds55 (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who researched this, especially User:Dsds55 who first brought it up and found some great sources. I have tried to correct the article but my work could stand some improvement. User:Brittle heaven, if you have a more precise cite for the BCM article on the 55th FIDE Congress I'd like to have it in the footnoote. Quale (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)