Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

WikiProject Chess Shortcut: WP:CHESS
Navigation Menu
Project Page	talk
Assessment	talk
Assessment statistics	talk
Review	talk
Chess Portal	talk

Skip to: the bottom of page to add a new topic or see most recent new topics

Match score formatting

Is there a standard format for match and tournament scores? The Chess scoring article was using an en dash for A–B type scores (though in the table the en dash had spaces either side, while the example used an unspaced minus sign instead of a dash...), and it also used en dashes for plus/minus scores, instead of the hyphen-minus or minus sign characters. For now I've switched that article to use to unspaced en dashes for dashes, and minus sign characters for minus signs, but I can't see anything about score formats in the Wikiproject conventions section; one option would be to expand the scope of the "Half points" subsection to something like "Scores and half points"? --Yodin^T 17:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

With no objections, I've expanded the scope of the section to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess § Scores and half points; please amend if there are any problems with it! --Yodin^T 03:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Chess gambits

Proposal is to delete the new category "Chess gambits" and restore all these openings to "Chess openings". Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_5#Category:Chess_gambits MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted with new link, please participate if you regularly edit chess articles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Rules of chess

Rules of chess has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Categories for (W)CMs

Is it intentional that there has been no Category Woman Candidate Masters and Category:Candidate Masters? While there are not too many CMs with a Wikipedia page, there are quite a few WCMs like Dinah Margaret Norman, Emiko Nakagawa, Marjorie Herrera, Eglantina Shabanaj. There are some CMs too but it will be trickier to find them not a proper query, just for demo.

Would it be okay to go ahead and create them? Konstantina07 (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking over WP:OVERCAT, I do not see any obvious objection to your proposed categories. I think the names of the categories should start with "Chess", i.e. Category:Chess Candidate Masters, following the pattern of Category:Chess FIDE Masters. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and created them; is there a good way to semi-automate identifying adding articles to the category or this can only be done manually? Konstantina07 (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Chessable

I'm reaching out here out of a question that some of you may have encountered before: What template is most appropriate for chapters of Chessable courses? Is this a {{cite book}} (as if it were an e-book) or {{cite-web}} (as if it were merely a website)? I'm currently going with the former at Draft:Devin gambit, as read mode seems something like an e-book, but I'm wondering if any of you have dealt with this before. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

There are a couple of Chessable citations in the London System article that I updated quite heavily last year, so I had a look to see what was done there.

At the time I updated the article I wasn't sure of the correct citation style. The article was copy edited for house style by user Ihardlythinkso, and I guess it must have been him who altered the citations to {{cite AV media}}. No doubt this is correct, although some Chessable courses (not the ones cited in that article) are text only and don't have an AV element, unless you count the move trainer as being 'V'. Hope this helps... Axad12 (talk) 08:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I had been more or less only been using the written book text as a source, though I agree it makes sense to use the {{cite AV media}} for the Chessable videos. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck with the Devin Gambit draft.

Incidentally, if you ever feel like starting an article on the (different but not entirely unrelated) Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.g4) I would happily contribute. Axad12 (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I've got some sources that cover both; my plan is to cover the Gibbins-Weidenhagen (or Bronstein) Gambit next, after I can finish up the section on the 4. Nxg4 lines in the current one. I'm a bit saddened that I can't find anything on 4. d4 in the Devin Gambit; it was Esipenko's choice against Mamedyarov, but I'm having trouble finding any written analysis of that move choice that isn't a mere blog post or lichess study. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The Devin Gambit is a bit outside of my repertoire so I'm afraid I can't help there.

The best source on the GWG (to my knowledge) is the series of 3 long articles on the schach-bremen.de website (which thankfully my browser automatically translates to English). If you know of any better source then do let me know.

I did once try to get hold of the two German book(let?)s on the subject from the 1990s, but the postage from Germany was prohibitive. To be honest I got the impression that Jurgen Tonjes had condensed all the most important info from those sources into his schach-bremen articles (but I stand to be corrected).

Magnus Carlsen gave the GWG a spin at Titled Tuesday back in December 2023 vs GM Aryan Tari (seems like Carlsen intends to play every opening at least once in his career...)

There is also a Vachier-Lagrave game from back in 2019 (vs Wei Yi).

GM Andrew Tang seems to be the GWG specialist and has used it to rack up victories against Firouzja and Andreikin amongst others. Axad12 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I will attempt to get what I can from the German articles (I could find the three articles about it, but my lack of German knowledge is a bit of a burden here). Schiller's Unorthodox chess openings from 1998 has eight pages (203-210) dedicated to the opening. The theory is likely going to be dated somewhat in both cases, since the website is now over 20 years old and Schiller's book is over 25 years old. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The best insight into the current theory may be the 16 games by GM Andrew Tang (+14 -2) played between 2020 and 2023. Seems like these were mostly bullet games, however, so I guess he was using the GWG because it's obscure and hard to refute with only a minute on the clock, rather than because he had some ground-breaking theoretical novelties.

To be honest, a Wikipedia article on the GWG would only need to address the theory at a fairly superficial level re: the pros and cons of accepting/declining the gambit plus a few sample lines taken from the occasional GM games. Axad12 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

To follow up on this all, there appears to be a free community chessable course at <https://www.chessable.com/the-devilish-devin-gambit/course/140860/> which is explicitly about this gambit. I'd ordinarily have no questions on using this if the author were a titled player (as they'd be something of a subject matter expert on chess), but it's made by a club player whose day job appears to be some sort of economics role for the Central Bank of Ireland. I'm looking and I see some evidence that there's playtesting and quality control on Chessable's end (c.f. editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking in the reliable sources guideline), and the main reason I'd like to use this source is to annotate a game that includes a tournament game between two GMs that includes 3. ...Bb4+ rather than just have some pictures of certain positions with little accompanying text.

My instinct here is saying that the source is OK in this context—I know we don't use Lichess studies, but I think the editorial control on Chessable's end distinguishes the community Chessable courses from studies on Lichess— though I wanted to see if there are any other opinions here. I'll be moving the draft to mainspace shortly; if there's no objections, I'll try to annotate the Wei Yi vs Levon Aronian game using the course as a source. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the chapter and verse is here, but personally I wouldn't have any objection given the nature of the subject. Axad12 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying you have annotations by a strong player, rather than just "a club player"? I would not recommend using annotations by a club player in a Wikipedia article. Given that Aronian and Wei Yi are super-GMs, you should be able to find annotations by someone real somewhere. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the author in the case quoted above, if his Chessable username 'pafiedor' relates to Pawel Fiedor then his standard play FIDE rating is 1485 (according to fide.com). If that is the case then I'd be inclined to reverse my previous comment. Axad12 (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Playing strength does not directly correlate with annotation quality. Reshevsky's books are notoriously poor, but I'd have no problem recommending a Graham Burgess or Tim Harding book. An amateur who has done their research and knows how to write can produce good annotations. When it comes to chess writing, Elo isn't everything. (That said 1485 is pushing it). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That's about where I am on this. It's just a bit hard to find commentary on this opening for high-level games, since the opening is fairly rare (and has been used by very strong players only very recently). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It's disappointing to run across a very high-level game (or more than one such game) for which there is no very high-level commentary. But we are an encyclopedia, we can wait. If the opening is worth writing about, soon enough the writing will come; and if it doesn't come, maybe the variation is not encyclopedia-worthy after all. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. I think the opening's gotten enough coverage for an article, but you're right there's no need to rush with commentary for an illustrative game regarding the 3. ...Bb4+ line. I shouldn't need to stretch sourcing for that sort of thing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

My feeling on this is as follows:

There will already be entire chess opening articles on Wikipedia that were written by players rated at less than, say, USCF Expert level (i.e. rating of 2000-2199). No one is worried about that as long as the articles are basically correct and informative and they quote appropriate WP:RS sources.

However, in the case in point, the value of a 1485 player adding commentary on a super GM game is going to be limited, and the point of quoting it as a source will be low.

If you are higher rated than 1485 then you might as well add your own commentary.

If you aren't then you can probably generate commentary of higher value than a 1485 player by simply putting the game through the Stockfish analysis engine [1], picking out some salient sub-variations and adding some relevant gloss. If a stronger player later comes along and disagrees with what you've said then obviously they can change it for themselves. That's just the normal Wikipedia process on any article (chess related or otherwise).

However, three further points...

a) on your draft article, why is it necessary to add commentary on a Super GM game at all? Most Wikipedia chess opening articles only talk about the opening moves in general terms without going into detail on specific games (and without discussing very much after the opening has ended except on a thematic level). Illustrative games normally sit at the end of the article, free of commentary.

b) if you feel that the commentary in the source you cite is clearly more insightful than that of a 1485 player then that raises the issue that you raised earlier on the relevance of whether or not there was editorial oversight prior to publication, but I'm not sure that we will get a consensus on whether that can be established or whether it is relevant.

c) there are already plenty of Wikipedia articles about openings more obscure and unorthodox than the Devin Gambit (e.g. article on 1.Nh3, etc.). I don't see anyone claiming that those articles are any the less (or that their notability is in question) due to the lack of expert commentary on Super GM games featuring those openings. Axad12 (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

To briefly respond in part: The reason I was seeking to include an illustrative game of the variations was that something like the GA Budapest gambit has an illustrative game, and I've generally seen illustrative games in other articles (though in some, like Queen's Gambit Declined, Cambridge Springs Defense, it's without commentary). I haven't written a chess openings article before, so I'm admittedly a bit new in terms of the general style and conventions here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If it helps, I was in the same position as you last year. I saw that there were some openings articles which were poorly written stubs so I rewrote them myself pretty much from scratch and expanded them to full articles. If you have a look at them it may help re: issues like format, level of analysis etc. in minor openings. The articles are King's Indian Attack, Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack, London System, and Hippopotamus Defence. The content/format seems to be non-controversial as the articles have only seen minor (mostly copy-editing) adjustments since they went up. Axad12 (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)