Clint Ballard

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Clint Ballard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Chazz88 12:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Bap system

Warm welcome from me also. You have made your first article, but it's lacking some finishing touches. You should go trough Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Redirect to find out how things work around here. Good luck! --syvanen 12:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

redirection

Hey, I'm sorry about jumping all over BAP System; I saw it being created and I didn't realize what you were trying to do. Melchoir 13:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, now I do feel like a heel, but...

If Google serves me well, and this link is correct, then you are the creator and chief proponent of the "BAP System", a phrase which you invented, and the Bainbridge Slugfest was held just last month... by you. I'm strongly considering nominating your article for deletion and reverting your edits to Chess. What do you think? Melchoir 13:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Draw (chess) was just excessive. Melchoir 13:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Melchoir??

BAP System is indeed my invention. I did not hide that. Everything I wrote is factual and the information about BAP is on other websites, so even just using the information there, what I wrote about the chess point system is true. BAP is real and BAP changes the point system for chess, so any place that the traditional point system is written about as if it were the only system, is wrong! I would gladly let you or anybody else make all the edits if there is some policy against the creator of history being a wikipedia contributor also. Slugfest.org and BAP is a non-profit personal website, not sure if that matters. Let's not get into an edit war. Tell me what you don't like about what I am doing and I will try to adapt, or maybe you can make the appropriate edits to show me how its done?

Clint

I'm sorry, but you cannot make a subject notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia by sheer force of will.

I understand that what you wrote is true, although that's not saying much because it's your system. But please try to put your views in perspective. You have not revolutionized chess. If you had, other people would be talking about it. If someday the "BAP System" becomes widely used, then someone else will write about it, fear not.

For an article to belong here, it is not nearly enough to be "factual". There are some purposes that Wikipedia simply does not serve, and among them are publicizing your own ideas. Please see WP:NOT. Melchoir 14:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not see anywhere in WP:NOT where it says that the person who creates something cannot also write about it in a factual way. My system has been mentioned in a newspaper, major chess website and minor chess websites. Is there a specific threshold that needs to be attained first? If so, what is it, please help me I am all very new to this. I am not changing chess itself, just the swiss pairing rules, so it would seem that if there was a tournament that used BAP, then it is as real as if somebody discovering the 11th planet and then updating the planets page. For 100 years, chess tournaments have been using the swiss pairing system as if no alternative was possible (flat earth theory), then I came up with BAP to solve the draw problem and then other people wrote about it and a tournament was held using BAP. Does the fact that I ran that tournament make it not count? Do others have to run tournaments using BAP for it to count? If so, how many? There do not seem to be any quantitative guidelines. I have discovered the solution to the excessive draws in chess. With that discovery, ALL mentions of wins being worth 1 point, draw half point, loss 0 points are WRONG. The point system is not intrinsic to chess, it is an arbitrary thing on how chess tournaments are held. Is it against the rules to write about discoveries related to my ideas? BAP is not simply an idea, it is an alternative that actually exists, however small it is for now, it does exist.

Clint Ballard 14:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, please try for a broader perspective. You say "I have discovered the solution to the excessive draws in chess." If you're so confident that you have the solution, why not wait longer than a month to try to write about it in an encyclopedia?

Of course there "exist" alternatives to the 1,1/2,0 system. Most of them are not notable enough to deserve an article. So Mig Greengard wrote about you; this is not publishing, and the fact remains that the content of the article is original research. I am not a lawyer, and I have no desire to argue the letter of Wikipedia policy. Already I've spent too much thought on this. If you're read WP:NOT, surely you understand that you are violating its spirit?

It is inevitable that there are no quantitative guidelines for notability. That's why we have the WP:AfD process. Shall we fire it up? Melchoir 14:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Our posts crossed, I had written:

The following is the section you say I am violating, with my take on it:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please leave them out of Wikipedia:

  1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Wikipedia:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals; but strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not the editor's opinion.

Chessninja is a pretty respected site on developments in chess. BAP was also in the local newspaper.

  2. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.

BAP has been reported in secondary sources, so this prohibition does not seem to apply.

  3. Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. See No 5 below. See also Writing guide: check your fiction.

not applicable, unless you are saying that I need to have links to substantiate what I am saying about the traditional point system?

  4. Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.

Slugfest.org is my soapbox. BAP is not my opinion, it is a verifiable fact reported in secondary sources.

  5. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Also see Wikipedia is not a blog.

The traditional point system has been around for 100+ years, BAP has been around a bit over 2 months as an idea and not quite a month as a real point system used in a chess tournament. Are you saying that I am violating the current affairs rule?

  6. Discussion forums (or Everything2 nodes). Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles.

not applicable

Melchoir, please tell me specifically what I am violating.

In the Pacific Northwest, a large percentage of the tournament chess players are familiar with BAP, eg. Nat Koons (USCF 2200+ and one of the top players) wrote: "4) There are all these ideas to eliminate short draws: make proposals before 40 moves illegal, use the BAP system so short draws are irrational, go Fischerrandom so short draws are simply hard to find! Or Nunn's suggestion on the Chessbase website simply not to invite excessively peaceful participants. All of these changes, I think, should be evaluated not just on how well they solve the "short draw problem", but whether or not all their effects are in sum a positive change." [1]. Not everybody likes BAP, eg. Mig, but that does not make it irrelevant. Former US Open champion Georgi Orlov says [2] about BAP. Basically, all the masters in the northwest know about BAP and a lot of the non-masters too. Is the geographical limitation the problem?

I am not familiar with the Afd process...

Clint Ballard 15:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Melchoir,

What ever happened to Do not bite the newcomers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see Template:IncGuide). Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; <end of quote>

I am not a lawyer, but the objections you have cited seems to boil down to whether BAP has enough recognition. Since this only affects tournament chessplayers, it would seem that we need to see if enough tournament chess players know about this. I would estimate at least 20% of the active NW tournament players know about BAP. Is that enough? Does it have to be 51% of the NW? 51% of the country?

Clint Ballard 15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's not discuss "recognition". The existence of BAP may have been reported in a newspaper, but your analysis is original research and unverifiable. I might propose simply deleting all the analysis and saving the definition, but such an article would be unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Really the best thing to do with BAP is to mention it at the bottom of Draw by mutual agreement. And on that note, where BAP is mentioned, it cannot be set up to be the best solution.

You and Chazz88 have chastized me for biting the newbie, and that hurts. I care about Wikipedia, and in my experience, people who enter this community by writing about themselves do not intend to stay. But I would love to proved wrong. Please, contribute to articles on chess. Write about all the proposals to discourage quick draws, and try to forget that one of them is yours. Stick to those facts and opinions you can find in reputable sources. If you think you can write without vanity, do it. Melchoir 16:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, let me thank you for editing in my content in a wikipedia acceptable way. How was I to know about all these details?? I read about being bold, I was bold. The reason for that is that after the bold stuff is written, it is supposed to be edited into the acceptable way, NOT deleted.

You write "and in my experience, people who enter this community by writing about themselves do not intend to stay", which I take to mean that you did NOT give me any benefit of doubt, which is contrary to wikipedia philosophy.

However, all is well that ends well and now wikipedia has information about the BAP system (I will write about other antidraw systems later, I just didn't have time at 5am).

Now on the point about this being about me, or my original research, I still have an issue with that. Do you play chess? If not, maybe that explains the disagreement. Chess games that are played between two people that are not me, is NOT my original research, even if I held the tournament myself. My interpretation is that a chess game that was played is the original research of the two players that played it. Since I happen to be a somewhat decent chessplayer, I would think that my reporting of what was in the original research (games) would be appropriate for Wikipedia. I read things in the current pages that have no references, but are of the same level of reporting. These games were played under BAP and so the effects of BAP can be written about in a neutral way because it is there for all people to see. Just ask any master level chess player if what I write about the games are correct or not. I have verified it with computer, so I doubt there will be many errors in it.

It seems that you have a pet peeve against people who write about themselves for any reason at all. I think I represent the exception to that rule. PLEASE do not automatically assume that what I am writing is vanity, just because it might be. PLEASE let me know what part of what I write crosses the line. I will soon be able to know where the line is, but please remember I have been doing wikipedia for less than 24 hrs.

So, do you disagree with my interpretation that a chess game is the original research between the two players that played it and if I am a competent chess writer, then I am able to write about it without it being considered vanity for the simple reason that the games were played at the Bainbridge Slugfest?

Clint Ballard 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we should both remember that actions speak louder than words. I accidentally neglected to clean up Chess#Rules_of_chess; perhaps you'd like to do it instead? At least, please re-read your addition. If you didn't know anything about chess, and you read that material in a paper encyclopedia article, what would you conclude about the importance of the BAP system? Is this realistic?

As for original research: if you yourself witnessed a game and then wrote about it based on your own observations, then yes, that absolutely would be original research. Melchoir 02:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me take a crack at rewording the rules of chess section to an appropriate level of objectivity, hopefully you will approve. Your method of imagining the point of view of someone that doesn't know chess is a good approach!

I still don't agree on the original research part though... I am not planning on writing about the games based solely on my observations, but what is self-evident to all chessplayers of master strength. The games record itself is the original research, eg. how BAP actually affected the chess player's psychology and decisions. What do you think of an article on chess psychology and how it affects draw percentage, with specifics like Kramnik's last two games against Leko when he was in a must win situation (not BAP), and in general must win situations? I will have to create a few stubs as I can't find anything published on some of this. I guess the big question is if the data is out there in the form of the games played and the results of those games, but nobody has summarized it yet, and I do it, then is that original research? If it is and then it gets published on a reputable chess site, then does the status change?

Maybe the best way to proceed is for me to write the article page and then you can write the language that links it into existing pages?

Clint Ballard 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've read over your new edits to Chess, and it's now clear to me that I was wrong about your intentions. Please accept my apology, and, er, welcome to Wikipedia! In the future I will be on the lookout for other sincere newcomers who make apparently vain entrances; I hope I find plenty.

I could hardly object to you summarizing games for which "the data is out there", and there's nothing wrong with a little editorialization... as long as any potentially controversial statements are backed up by sources. If you comment on chess psychology, for example, you really ought to draw on references that themselves address chess psychology, and not just game records. If you write an entire article on chess psychology, then such references are crucial to avoid speculation and bias. This is everyone's problem, not just yours.

Generally, websites are not considered reputable publishers. In practice, however, the amount of policing energy on Wikipedia is finite, and as long as no one has a reason to suspect you of pushing an agenda or of wild speculation, your contributions will be welcomed. A quick look through Category:Chess games reveals a large range in the amount of substantiation of content. Even if you can get away with less, I would still encourage you to shoot for the high end of that range. There are plenty of chess books and periodicals to draw from. If you really can't find anything published on a topic, that topic might not be ready for an encyclopedia article. Melchoir 08:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I am glad to be off of your badlist. I know a lot about this field, but I can't always quickly find the source. How do I put a note or marker like a stub, for a reference that I know exists but can't find quickly? Then, when I get the time, I can go and fill in the blank references. I prefer a breadth first approach, but that would mean that until I am done, it won't be done. Finding the references actually takes more time than writing, so if I can just write away, we can get a lot more content in this area. I am after advancing the overall knowledge of chess and if some of the frontiers of chess happen to be stuff that I was involved in, well, I won't be shy about that. Frankly, I wish all the problems were solved so I wouldn't have to, but it seems that nobody else out there is really doing much about actually solving the draw problem in chess. Is it OK to put descriptions of unsolved problems in the wikipedia? For example, "pairing theory" appears to be a VERY sparse area with hardly any formal research. Yet, it has application in all tournaments for all games/sports. I could put out there the next step of advancement that is needed and maybe somebody out there already knows the answer and can update it. I am not sure if it is acceptable to use the Wikipedia as sort of a todo list of industry wide reasearch, but I think it would be a pretty good thing to do. I always find it interesting to find out exactly where the frontiers of a specific field are and if we had that in the Wikipedia, it would allow people to quickly come up to speed on how to advance the frontier.

Clint Ballard 11:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsolved problems are great, sure! I think possibly you're looking for the (unreferenced) tag at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. There's a more strongly worded tag, (not verified), but you probably wouldn't want to add that one to your own contributions. Melchoir 11:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

BFA

I'me discussing with Melchoir. Please ensure that you inform me if any of your articles go for deletion so I can vote against deleteion (most likely). Just remember that Wikipedia approaches issues from a neutral point of view --Chazz88 16:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chazz88! Melchoir went and edited in my content in a way that is acceptable to wiki standards. I am sorry that I am so clueless about what is the right way to write and based on the encouragement to be bold, I was bold assuming that someone who knew the protocol would make the appropriate edits and not fight me about deleting it!

Clint Ballard 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

BAP system

This is completely off the subject of Wikipedia, so I'm doing it here on your page. The article on draw says

"3 points for black win, 2 points for white win, 1 point for black draw, 0 points for white draw or any loss. ... However, there were no short draws in the Bainbridge Slugfest and all the draws were fighting draws."

I see a problem with this. Since a draw or a loss is the same for white, if he can't win he may as well throw in the towel - he gets zero points either way. What happens to fighting draws then? Bubba73 (talk), 04:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this slugfest the tournament where you system was used? The USCF crosstable doesn't show your system. Bubba73 (talk), 04:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

BAP is only used to determine prize money and pairings. Thus, it is 100% compatible with existing rating systems. Your analysis about white having nothing to play for is a common assumption, but it is based on assuming you are evaluating a zero-sum game. With BAP, the difference between white drawing and losing is 2 BAP, as black's points goes from 3 to 1. In all but the last round, this is a very significant effect. Even in the last round, there are still rating points at stake and chessplayers just don't like losing, so white plays just as hard to save a draw as normal.

I posted more details about this on BAP Math. The second tournament with BAP will be held this weekend, so we will get confirmation whether the first one was just a fluke, or whether changing to BAP solves the draw problem. draws don't go away with BAP, they just become decisive also. Clint Ballard 07:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, 27/6 was one of my notorious days when I deleted 500 pages manually and lost my faculties and wrote everything as a copyvio image, rather than in this case, someone proposed it for deletion under WP:PROD as being non-notable. As nobody contested this for 5 days, I deleted it under the policy. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you are saying it was deleted because it wasn't notable enough? I just found out that this happened and was not notified about any pending review period. While there have only been around half a dozen tournaments run with it, that is more than the Sophia rules. The BAP only applies to chess masters, so it is a relatively small universe. Have you polled chess masters to see if they know about BAP?

The following players are attending the GM Slugfest

GM Victor Mikhalevski 2670, top GM from Israel GM Varuzhan Akobian <http://www.akobian.com> 2660, world open winner GM Alexander Shabalov 2653, multiple time us champion GM Lubomir Ftacnik 2600, chessbase.com advisor GM Dmitry Gurevich 2583 GM Greg Serper 2575 IM Eric Tangborn 2475 IM John Donaldson 2452, captain of US olympic team

These are many of the top players in the country and even from over seas. There has been much discussion about it and the USCF board acknowledged that BAP tournaments can be rated.

The Chess Mind The "*BAP*" *System* and the GM Slugfest Tournament <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1156225518.shtml> http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1156225518.shtml The Chess Mind The"*BAP*" *System* Revisited: A Prelude <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1156555290.shtml> http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1156555290.shtml Is BAP Chess = Chess? http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1156656329.shtml

Featured in magazine for chess masters by GM Baburin's Chess Today issue #2114

http://boylston-chess-club.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_boylston-chess-club_archive.html

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2005/11/slugfest_chess.html

Chessninja, Boylston and Chessmind are the top 3 chess blogs. How much more notoriety is needed? This is an obscure alternative to a way of scoring chess games. Not exactly front page news. Shouldn't top chess players be consulted about this? Who exactly determined that it was not well known enough? Do they even play competitive chess? Are they a master? Do they have an anti-BAP agenda like most chessplayers appear to?

I thought Wikipedia was not into censoring stuff that was not liked by the establishment.

Clint

P.S. There are only about 60 GM's in the entire United States, so 10% of them are playing in the BAP based GM Slugfest. Does it have to be 100%?

Hello. due to the process at WP:PROD, a tag indicating a deletion proposal was placed on the article. After five days, nobody had contested the deletion by removing the tag, so it was deleted. It wasn't about that the community necessarily agreed, just that nobody appeared to object to it being deleted. If you would like a copy of the page, I can give you one. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 04:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

AfD nomination of BAP System

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is BAP System. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAP System. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)