Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

Active discussions
WikiProject Chess (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

WikiProject Chess
Shortcut: WP:CHESS
Navigation Menu
talk
talk
talk
talk
talk


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

New article stubs on individual chess tacticsEdit

One of these came up recently in a discussion about staircase maneuver, but in fact several stub articles on chess tactics have been created since December:

Some of these seem like good candidates to keep and expand, perhaps clearance sacrifice, king hunt and attraction (chess). Others probably should be redirected, double attack to fork (chess) and perhaps poisoned pawn (chess) to Poisoned Pawn Variation although the term poisoned is applied in other contexts to a loose pawn that shouldn't be captured. (That second usage is really a glossary term. Perhaps it could support an article under a slightly more general title such as pawn hunting.) Underpromotion (chess) must be redirected to promotion (chess)#Underpromotion as underpromotion gets extensive coverage in the parent article. Including a main article link to the new stub in the underpromotion section of promotion (chess) is a not funny joke. Some of them should just go away, as trapping the queen is just gaining material. Blitz blockade must go away because that isn't even a thing.

I bring this up here in the hope that someone more diplomatic than me can find a tactful way to handle these. The articles aren't terrible and some are acorns that should be tended so they grow.

Our coverage of chess tactics isn't very good and I don't want to discourage honest attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Quale (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Reading Blitz blockade, I note that it is based on a game between F. Crabill and George Kvakovszky that appeared in Chess Life, July 1971, annotated by Hans Kmoch. Kmoch coined the phrase "blitz blockade" to annotate this contribution, saying, "To succeed quickly with such a slow-motion method requires appropriate cooperation of course." My web search has not uncovered any subsequent uses of this coinage. The creator of the article is the editor User:George.kvakovszky. So I suppose this is autobiographical.
Would "speedy deletion" or "proposed deletion" be appropriate here? Otherwise I would be willing to initiate an AfD. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Kmoch of course was famous for inventing technical terms used by noone else. If these are to be defined or described at all they should be in the articleon Kmoch. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it fits any CSD criteria. You could try a PROD. P-K3 (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I always thought PRODs were a bit sneaky. I'd go for an AfD, it's sourced and maybe there's some content there that's usable in another article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I have initiated a PROD. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
None of the other articles are worth saving. I generally agree with the assessments by User:Quale. The editor appears to have read a recent chess beginner's book, A to Z Chess Tactics by George Huczek (Batsford), and picked a few concepts from it to create articles about. I am not sure that any of the topics merit more than a glossary entry. OK, that's just my opinion. But if, for example, Clearance sacrifice is worth a whole article, then the article will be based on some set of sources, such as textbooks or game collections or articles, and it is not obvious to me that this book by Huczek will play any role at all. So expanding this article will involve, essentially, starting from scratch.
In the case of Attraction (chess), I do not remember seeing this term before for the kind of tactics described, that is, I think that non-standard terminology is being used; correct me if I'm wrong. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it's more usually known as a Decoy (chess), and the two articles should be merged one way or the other. — Bilorv (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I've already redirected Poisoned Pawn and Double Attack. I'm not sure that any of them are worthy of separate articles.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Figure skating, chess, Wikidata, and automated reportsEdit

Hello WikiProject Chess,

I am posting here to share an example of automated reporting of sports based on Wikidata. I thought this would be interesting to this WikiProject because the documentation of chess games is easy as compared to other sports, and because I think that eventually Wikipedia use chess as a model for managing the documentation of many sports, in many languages. All of this is far-fetched right now, but I do want to share what I think is an interesting development.

First, thanks to קיפודנחש for their December 2020 technical development proposal in the annual community wishlist.

The proposal was to improve the way that Wikipedia displays chess images. This did not get enough votes, but I think that eventually this software will come to Wikimedia projects.

Now I want to share an example article on figure skating from French Wikinews

This skating article is special because it presents a table from Wikidata. Since the table is from Wikidata, any language version of Wikinews could present it.

In the chess and skating examples, I see the potential to use Wikidata to display content in any language. Sports reporting often includes quantitative data, so it is an ideal place to start for this.

There is not much substance to the idea of generating articles at scale from Wikidata, but I think there is potential. I am not asking anything of anyone here and I have nothing to offer to advance the development of chess in Wikipedia. However, when I was asking around about what other people thought of chess, someone shared with me this figure skating progress. There are lots of articles using that model, and the French Wikinews reportedly publishes these articles in some automated way. If we get an opportunity to develop data from chess as the model for documenting all sports, then I think we should consider it.

That's all I have - thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikidata is an interesting effort. I think at some point it we will be able to use wikidata queries to replace some tables such as in list of chess grandmasters. Quale (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

What to do about a sourced but suboptimal variation?Edit

At Queen versus pawn endgame#Bishop pawn, in the second example (attributed to Lolli), the move 4. Kf2 is suboptimal – 4. Ke4 wins more quickly (mate in move 8). After 4. Kf2, the variation shown, 4… Kd1, leads to mate in move 7, as shown, but black can instead play 4… Kd3, escaping to the centre and prolonging the game. Also, the variation shown requires finding nifty queen moves, whereas after 4. Ke4 Kd1 (the only move that doesn't lose the pawn immediately), 5. Kd3 seems more straighforward (though it allows a slight complication if black underpromotes to a knight with check). I'd like to "correct" the article, but my only source is a computer analysis, which I suspect doesn't count as a primary source. If the article were flat-out wrong, I'd correct it anyway, but it's more subtle than that, since the point here is how to demonstrate the win, not necessarily how to get the quickest mate, and it's not immediately obvious whether 4. Kf2 or 4. Ke4 demonstrates the win more effectively. The analysis would certainly benefit from mentioning the possibility 4. Ke4, though. What are the conventions in this regard? I presume this sort of situation must arise quite often with chess, that a computer analysis finds errors or improvements in old published studies but isn't itself published? Joriki (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Basically, engine analysis is original research and can't be used in wikipedia. Likewise engine analysis generated by online sites like lichess.org. In any case "suboptimal" moves are ok, if it wins then it's a good move. Sure you can go home earlier if you mate in 8 instead of 10, but making the move that mates in 10 is not an "error". Likewise chess awards no bonuses for being checkmated on move 60 instead of move 58. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC) By the way we often slip our "original research" in by finding a source that agrees with it. It's a bit sneaky but some of the old analysis just doesn't stand up to engine scrutiny. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Support for per-page JavaScript (such as a chess viewer)Edit

An update from Phabricator task T8883: Allow page-specific inclusion of <script>s, etc. in header – there is now an extension in beta release, UseResource, that implements <usescript> and <usestyle> elements to load scripts/stylesheets from the MediaWiki namespace. From the Phabricator ticket comments, there still needs to be a review process and testing before it could be eligible for deployment on any WMF-operated wiki. This capability is of course not needed for the chess viewer extension that is being developed, but if for whatever reason that doesn't pan out, another step forward has been made in supporting a client-side script-based chess viewer. isaacl (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the premature raising of hopes: that Phabricator task has been closed by someone who understandably feels that optional loading of gadgets is a better route to pursue, as in Phabricator task T63007: Allow specifying when a gadget should load (conditional, page title, action or namespace). So, back to waiting to see if conditional gadget loading gets implemented. isaacl (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not too keen on the recent trend of moving new articles to draft space instead of leaving them to be improvedEdit

Draft:Bishop's Gambit wasn't bad, it just needed more specific sourcing. Nothing a little collaboration couldn't fix. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources in "Further reading" were good enough that WP:DRAFTIFY did not apply. Neither "The page is obviously unready for mainspace" nor "The topic appears unimportant, is possibly not worth the effort of fixing, and no great loss if deleted due to expiring in draftspace" were met. I'm sure this is much easier to assess as someone with subject knowledge though (I'll neither confirm nor deny having played the Bishop's Gambit). NPP has this workflow where draftify is often the least time-consuming route even if not the best and given the backlog I can understand why you'd want to get through it quickly. Pinging John B123, who draftified this. — Bilorv (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The "Further Reading" section is not a references section - see Wikipedia:Further reading. The article was tagged as needing references on 14 March[1] and no effort was made to resolve the problem. --John B123 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
From WP:DRAFTIFY:
As part of the review of new pages, an unreviewed page may be moved to draft if:
  1. the topic has some potential merit, and
  2. the article does not meet the required standard, and
  3. there is no evidence of active improvement.
All three of which are met. --John B123 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@John B123: I understand we can't expect you to have any chess knowledge and patrolling the queue is a difficult and thankless job, but let me lay out my impression of the version of the page you draftified and I'd like you to say whether if you had that knowledge you would have still draftified the article, or taken some other action.
Every work in the "Further reading" section has "King's Gambit" in the title (in some language) and the Bishop's Gambit is a major enough part of the King's Gambit that it would be unusual for such works to not mention it. In fact specific page numbers are given for three of the sources, which I can reasonably assume to be about the Bishop's Gambit, and some of the authors are alluded to in the prose in contexts which are likely a reference to those books. WP:DRAFTIFY expands upon the criterion "required standard", which means (to my reading) that all of 2a, 2b, 2c or 2d must hold, but 2a and 2b do not hold (I'd give the page C-class in a good mood and Start-class in a bad one, and it is a much-needed gap for WPChess). There is no requirement for a page to meet WP:MINREF for it to be marked as patrolled, but even so, it's hard to see what fact in the article is contentious enough to meet one of the four MINREF criteria. — Bilorv (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: As previously stated, the contents of a "Further Reading" section are not considered references to an article. From Wikipedia:Further reading: Further reading is not a list of general references, and from MOS:FURTHER: This section is not intended as a repository for general references . WP:MINREF is an essay not a policy or guideline. Of more relevance is WP:VERIFY, which is a policy and includes: All content must be verifiable... and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. --John B123 (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@John B123: so your position is that if the 'Further reading' section had instead been named 'References' then the page would not have been draftified? Do you not see that this violates common sense, particularly in the case of a new user who cannot be expected to know such minutiae? — Bilorv (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I'm not saying anything of the sort. Please read my previous post in full. --John B123 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

In the future, if you object to draftification, you can just move it back. You should just be ready for it to be taken to AfD if you do. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"Unofficial World Champion"Edit

Another hoary old edit warring chestnut... there is no such thing as an "unofficial world champion", we need to protect the integrity of articles like Paul Morphy and Adolf Anderssen. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Any opinions on this?Edit

Discussion at The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) talk page: Talk:The_Queen's_Gambit_(miniseries)#Importance_grading. Personally I don't see anything that makes this series uniquely significant to WP:CHESS over and above other chess-related films, so that would mean it gets a "low" importance rating along with Pawn Sacrifice, Searching For Bobby Fischer etc. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on that (I probably would assume it's mid given its pop culture crossover, but meh). It occurs to me, however, that I don't even understand the project's importance level descriptions. "Adds important further details"? What is "add" doing there? "Further details" beyond what? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I've added my two cents to the discussion. I don't see myself contributing much more than what I already have. Further input is welcome. Cobblet (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Chess Life and Chess Review are available on line up to one year agoEdit

https://new.uschess.org/chess-life-digital-archives MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC) A recommended google search is "site:uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com" + whatever you're searching for. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Amazing stuff, should be useful. — Bilorv (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. If only there were a "download all" :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
wget -r -w 1 http://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/CL-AND-CR-ALL/ Quale (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Will have to look for a Windows-friendly wget. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The Canal attackEdit

Is the Canal attack (An unlisted opening) a WIP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberM10 (talkcontribs) 18:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

ChessBrower Extension questionEdit

Hi all.

So, as you may know, there is an active proposed extension which will allow inclusion of interactive chess games viewer in chess articles, such as is active on hewiki and ruwiki. adding it to enwiki was proposed several times on enwiki, even "accepted", but not implemented for technical reasons, with the main argument being "this should be an extension", so it's fair to assume this community should be interested in the project.

A recent change was made, which removes some of the buttons from the viewer, among them the "autoplay" (the others were speed control). The question I'd like to ask this community, is how useful, is autoplay? and btw, how useful is "flip board" in interactive game viewers?

The extension is written mainly by User:Wugapodes, who also happens to be an admin on enwiki, with others. it's meant to provide functionality like this site, for example, and is inspired by a gadget (written by myself), which is active on hewiki and ruwiki, in many chess related articles.

Please see Phab:T281649.

Peace.

I agree with your comments in the Phabricator ticket that the speed controls are not essential, but the play button is a key function for readers. As a non-chess player, the flip functionality isn't important to me, but perhaps it has instructional value for players? isaacl (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Flip function is very minor. Chess diagrams are traditionally shown with White at the bottom. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I was considering saying that given the traditional format, students of the game will be used to reading the diagrams this way. But given that web sites don't have the limitations of printed paper, I think it could be helpful to let the reader orient the board differently. In terms of allocating space in the UI, which was the concern in the ticket, my personal priority would be to have a play button. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. Are these features causing bugs that are preventing this from being implemented? If not, is this holding up implementation? It seems to me that a discussion about design that doesn't have direct implications for implementation/bugs should be on-wiki rather than on phabricator.
I find that I never use the autoplay features when they're available to me, and always feel very minorly annoyed when it's turned on by default. But, there may be use cases when they're useful. For example, let's say we use this tool to play through, I don't know, the Sicilian Dragon just to illustrate the move order rather than to display an entire game. That seems like something that it would be useful to autoplay for, off on the side, displayed as though it were a looping animation. Of course, that implies that there's a looping feature, which now that I think about it would be strange for a chess game viewer.
I do, however, often use a flip sides button. Some games are intended to be instructive for black, or illustrate black's side of an opening, and I always flip it in those cases. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

i do not frequent chess sites, and have questions for those who do, and use interactive gameplay: regardless of whether it's useful or not, what controls are common? as far as i saw, goto start, goto end, next, previous and autoplay are ubiquitous. i think more than half the sites i happened to stumble upon also have "flip". can't recall seeing speed control - i did this one per request/suggestion of a reader on hewiki. in the standalone, there's one more button (i don't think i saw this one either): show/hide comments, when notation contains embedded comments. when weighing usefulness, please remember that this is meant not just for wikipedia, but any wiki that may want this functionality, e.g. wikibooks, wikiversity, and non-wikimedia wikis.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

All of these functionalities are useful but none are essential, and I would not support any additional functionality if it holds up the implementation. We just need a minimum viable product rolled out. And from the flip side, there's no point with devs working on features if we can never actually get the thing implemented (unless they think it's worth doing it for ruwiki/hewiki/anywhere else that will have it). — Bilorv (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
From what I understand from the ticket, the discussed functionality was implemented already, and some of it was removed in order to make the user interface more compact, which would make it easier to use on touch devices. So any choice here won't affect when the extension can get tested and approved for deployment. isaacl (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, adding to what I wrote above. From a design perspective, using the demo as reference, here's my take: autoplay/faster/slower are entirely optional. The time that people want to look at a move varies significantly between moves, and it's just much easier to do that by clicking/tapping. I feel pretty strongly about flip sides being important, but maybe I'm in the minority. One likely issue if people try to import PGN games is that this doesn't seem to support comments. I tried both formats (with a semicolon and with curly brackets) and both return a Lua error. Long term this would be very useful. It does allow !/!!/?/??/!?/?! as well as various other characters tacked onto the end of moves -- not that that's common or something to worry about. The other big thing is that the box is a big thing. It would be nice to either shrink the notation and place it underneath or include a parameter that just doesn't display it. I think having both side-by-side limits its use in some scenarios where you might want to have the game off to the side like a thumbnail rather than a centerpiece of an article. All of this said, I agree that something is better than nothing and perhaps we can revisit this stuff after it's implemented. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that being able to move forwards and backwards one move at a time is the most important function, and would not support replacing it with only the play feature. However I think there are readers with only a casual interest in chess who would like to have a lean-back experience and just watch the game unfold, or more avid chess fans who wouldn't mind letting the game play until they pause it at a key moment of interest. I do agree that this decision oughtn't hold up further testing and deployment. isaacl (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
regarding comments: the "prototype" demo page does not support comments, b/c it uses a lua-based "scaffolding" i wrote just for the demo, to simulate the php based part of the extension, in order to test and demonstrate the "thin" viewer. i took several shortcuts on the scaffolding, and to make life easier i skipped on parsing comments. the real thing (both standalone and the extension) do support comments. the standalone demo can be seen here: he:משתמש:קיפודנחש/ארגח_1). unfortunately, currently there is no public accessible demo page for the extension. for the standalone, please note two things: (1) there's and additional CC button, which only appears when the notation actually contains comments, and allows hiding and exposing them. (2) on mobile devices (or rather, when the "minerva" skin is used), the speed control and flip buttons are removed, to streamline the UI.
as mentioned, this is not about "adding functionality", but rather, "should this existing functionality be removed". peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Chess".