Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been proposed that every WikiProject choose a single article which represents what the Project members hope each article will eventually look like, so that interested onlookers can see where a Project is heading. If this project is ready to choose such an article, please do so and link to it after the Project name at Wikipedia:WikiProject. If there are no articles ready for this yet, you may wish to focus as a group on an article which is close and/or will be relatively easy to research.

See Chessboards for a discussion of generating chess boards procedurally.

Archives /Archive 1

Contents 1 Too many short articles on opening variations? 2 Chess in FARC - your help needed 3 Template 4 article on opening traps? 5 Suggestion: "Games Collections" section on the chess template 6 Help on a Knight's Tour image 7 Stuart Milner-Barry 8 Computer chess 9 PNG -> SVG images 9.1 Oppose to switching 10 Wikipedia Day Awards 11 Article of interest peer review 12 WP:NOT not being followed 13 What is the pronouncation of Lucena? 14 Relevant FAC nomination 15 Advanced Chess 16 ECO chess openings 17 Infobox chess player 18 Two important items

[edit] Too many short articles on opening variations?

As list of chess openings shows, there are a lot of short articles on sub-variations of the Ruy Lopez and the Sicilian. There are even such articles for Nimzo-Indian, Alekhine, English, Benko gambit, and others. Most of these articles are stubs of only one or two paragraphs. We need to decide whether to keep the articles this way or to merge them back into their main articles. Bubba73 (talk), 16:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think those article, which consist just of one paragraph should be merged back into main article. For example:

• Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 7...O-O,
• Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 9.Bc4,
• Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 10.O-O-O and
• Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 12.h4

should be merged into Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation. Create a separate article for each ECO code is quite bad idea. Larger variants, which already have quite a lot of info should stay, for example:

• Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation,
• Sicilian Defence, Scheveningen Variation,
• Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation,

i.e. basically main variations with rich theory. Andreas Kaufmann 19:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your proposal is exactly how it should be. And after looking at these overzealous opening articles that were linked above (the Dragon variations), I see they were created by a "WTHarvey" character whose main objective seemed to be linking to his web site in the external links. So these articles weren't created in good faith anyway. SubSeven 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith. :-) Anyway, until the Sicilian article is short enough, they can be merged back. But perhaps in the far future, I can imagine that they will have right on existence as soon as somebody writes more than one paragraph sbout them. Today, my vote is rather neutral as I think that we have much more acute problems in this Wikiproject than stubs on openings.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the subvariations of the Sicilian Yugoslav should be merged back into th Dragon article, and that the atricles on the Dragon, Schev, and Najdorf are certainly good enough to stand on their own. Bubba73 (talk), 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I just found C86 (chess opening). I don't know how many ECO codes hace their own articles. This needs to be addressed too. Bubba73 (talk), 04:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sim man added C86 and some others. He says that he has a project to add all ECO codes. He is not a member of this project. I think we need to decide whether or not this should be done, and invite him to join this project. (He has not edited since Feb 2006 though.) Bubba73 (talk), 04:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Sicilian is an interesting case, although I tend to agree that there are more articles than needed, articles on variations which are too specific. However keep in mind that the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings devotes as much space to the Sicilian alone as they do to all the 1.e4 e5 openings combined. That all variations are collected under the "Sicilian" umbrella while we have Ruy Lopez, Italian, King's Gambit, Scotch, Vienna, etc. for the open games is an injustice caused by historical reasons. I think it is reasonable to have individual articles on some of the main variations such as the Closed Sicilian, Dragon Sicilian, Najdorf Sicilian and Scheveningen Sicilian, as well as some rarer lines (O'Kelly, Wing Gambit, and so on). But when the titles start to include moves instead of names the specialization is perhaps too great. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chess in FARC - your help needed

As you know, the article Chess is now a Featured article removal candidate. We (=Andreas Kaufman, Bubba73, SandyGeorgia, myself...) addressed most of the initial concerns and the article has been completely rewritten since the nomination. So I hope that there are good chances that it will keep its Featured status. But there is still an important concern regarding inline citations in the History and Culture section - they are too few. Here in Prague I do not have access to English chess books, so please help if you have. For example: History of Chess by Harold J. Murray; Chess: The History of a Game (Hardinge Simpole Chess Classics) by Richard Eales; History of Chess by Jerzy Gizycki. Thank you,--Ioannes Pragensis 08:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have History of Chess by Harold J. Murray. I have A short history of Chess, by Davidson. I used that in the history of stalemate. If anything on history needs a reference, I'll look for it there. Bubba73 (talk), 15:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I have been working on creating for a template for the Chess articles (which can be found here Template: Chess). I thought this group might be interested in helping to make this better. Remember 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! The idea is great, we must only select better items for the template. For example I would replace the category People with "Leading chess players" (before Steinitz) and "World Chess Champions" (starting with Steinitz). Because "People" is too broad to be in a template - there are hundreds of notable chess players.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article on opening traps?

As far as I know, there isn't an article on opening traps. checkmate gives a lot of quick checkmates in the opening. I think it would be good to have an article with other opening traps. Bubba73 (talk), 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The chess traps category has a list of traps. Checkmate also has several quick checkmates in the openings. I propose moving both the list of traps from the category and the list of checkmates in the opening to a new article, and letting it be expanded. The new article could be "Chess opening traps" or "List of chess opening traps". Bubba73 (talk), 15:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A general article may perhaps be good. But I would keep also the categories and the articles about the most important traps. And there are too many traps in openings...--Ioannes Pragensis 15:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely keep the category and the indfividual articles. But move the list at the top of that to the new article and move most of the quick checkmates in checkmate to the new article. Bubba73 (talk), 19:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: "Games Collections" section on the chess template

The chess template may provide a way to solve a problem which has been bugging me for a while: links to games collections. In the "External links" section of nearly every major chess player, there is to a collection of their games - sometimes more than one link. chessgames.com seems to be the preferred link to use, but sometimes others are used. Recently there was a discussion here on whether another site's list of games (chessworld.net) was spam. The problem was, these different sites all might have slight advantages over one another. So should every player's page have links to their games at 2, 3, 4 or more sites? So instead, why not have EVERY player's page link to a page called something like "chess games collections", using the chess template? That page could provide detailed links to chessgames.com and whatever other games collections are out there. That way, rather when deciding whether or not an external link to a games page is spam, do it once on the "chess games collections" rather than 100 different times on 100 different player pages. Does this idea have merit? Rocksong 01:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea. My main concern with it though is that you'd lose one-click access to the games collection for a particular player; you'd have to manually search by name once you get to the external site. I like the ChessGames links in particular because they have biographical information, statistics, and user comments in addition to the games collection (which I find actually kind of sucks, since you cannot download a collection as PGN). What if we keep both the individual ChessGames links on player pages and have a Chess Game Collections article? -SpuriousQ 02:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the "chess games collections" page could have all the relevant links: Kasparov's games at chessgames.com, Karpov's games at chessgames.com, etc. Of course that's still one extra click to get from Kasparov's page to Kasparov's games. I guess I'm suggesting trading off a small amount of browsing convenience, and in return gaining a large amount of editorial convenience (easier control of the spam links). Rocksong 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is an interesting idea, Rocksong, but I am rather against it because it means much more inconvenience for the readers. No only one click more, but also deciding which database to choose and searching in it. We, editors, should took the responsibility and decide what to link. Moreover, as SpuriousQ already mentioned, the purpose of the links is not only collection of games, but also more biographical information, and that is exactly why ChessGames is preferred at this time. - On the other side, I strongly support your idea to create an auxiliary article about collections of chess games and chess information on the web, maybe not in the main namespace. It should be linked from this wikiproject to help editors. --Ioannes Pragensis 08:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help on a Knight's Tour image

Hi! I'm working on an article on The Turk, the chess playing automaton hoax. The machine was able to do the knight's tour, which we have an article of with a free image of a way to solve the knight's tour. I'm not good with images, but if I were to provide a picture from the book to someone to create an image of the knight's tour (I'm assuming since it's simply a chess puzzle that was completed by someone 300 years ago, copyright isn't an issue for the derivative), would someone be able to help? Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, we already have an article about the knight's tour, and the picture is there - use it if you wish. Greetings,--Ioannes Pragensis 08:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not the format in which the Turk solved it, which is more of what I'm looking for. If I had any graphic abilities, I'd do it myself... --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Why not take the image from the book? Is it copyrighted?--Ioannes Pragensis 12:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be (as the image gives the impression of it being made for it), and I wouldn't want to risk it anyway if it wasn't clear. An original derivative of the mapping would solve the quandry. I could possibly get away with a fair use rationale for it, but I know other people have made boards like this before and I haven't used any other fair use images on the article yet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Then try Wikipedia:Graphic Lab - they should help you with creation of a vector graphics. Good luck!--Ioannes Pragensis 14:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Milner-Barry

Hello! I'm looking for feedback and/or collaboration on Stuart Milner-Barry, a British chess player and World War II codebreaker. I know more about codebreaking than I do about chess, so I was hoping someone might be able to check or improve the article from the chess angle, or point me in the direction of additional sources that could be used. Cheers! — Matt Crypto 03:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

All I have is a short blurb about his variation of the Nimzo-Indian defense in Oxford Companion to Chess. Bubba73 (talk), 04:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. There's a bit his variation in Nimzo-Indian Defence (which is probably the best place to go into detail about the opening, rather than his biography). — Matt Crypto 16:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computer chess

Hello and good luck with your project. Should I add Kotok-McCarthy (to which I added the project banner and portal) and Kaissa by User:Andreas Kaufmann (which I think you know about as it was on DYK recently) to the list of chess topics? Over time the articles might benefit from the project's expertise and access from the portal. Thank you either way and best wishes. -Susanlesch 09:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, to which list of chess topics? Best wishes to you, --Ioannes Pragensis 10:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry forgot the link. This one.-Susanlesch 10:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

MacHack (chess) may also be of interest. I am sorry I do not know programming and chess well enough to make very many contributions to it. I did write to the USCF last summer. They no longer had a record of the honorary membership but said it was entirely possible. If you think it would help I will look up that correspondence. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 21:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. Add them all. Thank you for the effort and Happy New Year.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PNG -> SVG images

I posted an RFC at meta:Talk:WikiProject Chess. Please feel free to comment. Cburnett 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a new template, which uses your SVGs instead of PNG. For example, "Chess diagram experimental". Then we can add two diagrams here side by the side to make it easier to compare. Also it would be nice if your images and board colors would resemble the current one as much as possible. I think the current images are very nice and there are many screenshots already which use them, see e.g. Hexagonal chess. Andreas Kaufmann 10:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go:

PNG using {{Chess diagram}}	SVG using {{Chess diagram/temp}}
PNG using {{Chess diagram small}}	SVG using {{Chess diagram small/temp}}

Two issues I see:

• the colors don't match but that's a trivial thing to change
• the border on the light pieces could be bigger on the SVGs to match the PNGs.

Otherwise they are pretty similar. The SVGs, not to my surprise, look sharper. Cburnett 00:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I will go ahead and start changing the background colors to match so depending on when you read this some of the images might not match. Cburnett 00:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Cburnett 02:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The SVGs look ugly! I don't like them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sibahi (talk • contribs).

Do you have anything constructive to say, or just here to complain? What makes them ugly because I have to put my nose to the screen and squint to tell the difference. Cburnett 13:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I would not call them "ugly", I agree with Sibahi that the pieces, especially the Black ones, are better readable in PNG: look e.g. at the white borders on black Knights there; also the shapes of the pieces are better in PNG (SVG Pawns are too massive while the Bishops too small). Greetings, --Ioannes Pragensis 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments I can work with, thank you. Keep listing more without getting too pedantic. Cburnett 14:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally I think the shape of the pieces is better in the diagram on the left, expecially the pawns and knights. Also, the black knight (on the left) has a bit of white outlining which helps. The other black pieces have a bit more white (at least on my screen) that helps them to look better. The prongs on the queen's crown look too crowded on the right. Bubba73 (talk), 18:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, what Bubba73 said. The pieces shapes in the left diagram are better looking. There is more colour balance, that is to say: while the PNGs' borders are quite nice, the SVGs' borders are way too thin. Other than borders, the knight looks very.. er.. stiff. Almost all pieces lack balance between the upper part and the lower part, especially the king. His head is very big but his base is very small. I would draw the SVGs exactly like the PGNs, probably by importing the images to Adobe Illustrator or the program you use and draw over the lines. (The SVGs do look nice in the larger scale, but there is absolutely no need to show them in 90px!!) I don't know if the pieces look differently in other people's screens, the way it looks in my screen is in image:chessyyy.gif . -Sibahi_talk 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So far I have fixed pawns, rooks, bishops, and kings. Comments on those? Cburnett 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a vast improvement! One thing, I liked the shape of the old SVG rook a little better, but that is not a big deal. Bubba73 (talk), 02:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The old version is still on the commons. This is why I'd like to see these chess pieces changed to SVG. :) Basically, the old SVG was narrower and slightly taller. Cburnett 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

New queens and knights are uploaded. That should be all of them. Now which of all the above comments still stand? I know there are still subtle differences (in particular the "spine" of the knights") but at what point is it "good enough and tweakable to our heart's content in the future"? IMHO, they are good enough and anyone willing to spend hours perfecting the pieces is what wikipedia is all about. Cburnett 03:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job, now there is very little difference. You are right about the spine of the knight - the white area on the black one helps define it a little better. And the shape of the old knight and old bishop are a little more what is usually printed in the literature. But I think that the differences are so small that the new ones are quite acceptable. About the only way they look inferior is a direct side by side comparison. In my opinion, these are good enough. Bubba73 (talk), 03:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: in the old ones, besides putting an "X" (which you showed), you could also put a dot on a square as well as digits 1 through 9. These are needed - are they in the SVG version? Bubba73 (talk), 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The best what I could find for the dot are:

and

Those would be nigh trivial to make if that's what you're referring to.

As for digits 1 through 9, any particular size? The height of a chess piece or the size of the dot shwon above or somewhere inbetween? Cburnett 03:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Those dots look fine. As far as the digits, probably about half the height of the squares, centered. See Corresponding squares. Bubba73 (talk), 04:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see King and pawn versus king for uses of dots and Xs. The SVG takes a lot longer to load. Bubba73 (talk), 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Those above were the original PNGs, here's the SVGs:

Here is #1 in SVG:

The SVGs shouldn't take any longer after the first time media wiki converts the SVG to PNGs to actual viewing. Cburnett 04:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I added numbers 1-9, dots, and X's to the diagram for comparison. Cburnett 06:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Those look fine to me! Bubba73 (talk), 06:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your feedback! If anyone else would like to chime in, that'd be great. Cburnett 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The new pictures look much better, I still prefer the PGNs though (the SVGs are a little sharp.) I have to say I don't see the need to change to the SVGs. But since you're working on them any way, you might to try it for the vriants. -Sibahi_talk 13:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a read: commons:Commons:Transition to SVG. I don't think I really need to make my own case, do I? Cburnett 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing at that page. Bubba73 (talk), 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, needed another "commons:" in the link. Cburnett 15:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to this link you posted: "SVG images use more server resources to generate than a normal image view." This is in no way practical for the Chess project, especially that many articles have an awful lot of diagrams. Besides, this article only mentions flags and the sort, and probably mathematical diagrams. I don't see how SVGs can be useful to the Chess project in particular. So, I guess you need to make your own case. -Sibahi_talk 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Server load is only when the file is rendered the first time. If the file doesn't change then the rendered version is cached and it's no faster than PNG (it is, in fact, converted to PNG). So the load issue is a moot issue since 26px is how their rendered everywhere in {{chess diagram}}s. Since that seems to be your only complaint, then I ask you want about SVGs don't fit the chess project? The last two disadvantages don't apply unless you can list technical deficiencies of my SVG images. So that leaves only positive reasons which are iterated in the link and, IMHO, self-evident to anyone who understands vector graphics (and this is not the place to argue the merits of vector graphics).

So, really, what is your problem with SVGs? How pedantic and tedious do you want to get with comparisons? The SVGs are satisfactory to both Bubba73 and I. And, here's the best part, since they're SVG you have a lossless source that you can use to tweak and play with to get the pieces as perfect as you can possibly make them. Cburnett 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the SVGs are re-downloading every single time I open the page. The only advantage for SVG over the current PGN is that you can get it larger. This a completely useless feature for the chess project, as you correctly pointed out "26px is how they're rendered everywhere in {{chess diagram}}s."

The problem I have with the SVGs (and you're obviously taking this personally,) is that the PGNs are not arousing any problems, they're working perfectly well and adaptable to any other addition to the current set. And, as Andreas Kaufmann pointed out, they've already been used in non-template diagrams. My argument, simply put, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The PGNs are satisfactory to almost every member in Wikipedia. And none of these changes will be executed unless the people at MetaWiki go for their favour, so they can be applied to all Wikipedia projects. -Sibahi_talk 12:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

First, it's PNG not PGN; if you're going to argue in favor of it at least be able to spell it right... Second, my only "taking it personally" is that basically all you've done here is complain. Calling my work "ugly" is a very poor way to start a conversation nor does do anything to your favor and saying that only creates animosity. So if you're complaining about me taking it personally then maybe you should be a tad more courteous (have I insulted you or your work?) and more tactful in what you say (see bubba73's and Ioannes Pragensis' response for tips). I can take criticism just fine but "ugly" is not helpful by any means and is an insult instead of constructive criticism. Don't complain when you started it.

That said. The problem with PNGs is that they are raster-based images. I want to see a reference that vast majority of wikipedians not only are fine with PNGs but have an aversion for SVGs (two completely separate questions and I'm assuming a very vocal minor such as yourself). I'm fine with PNGs but, all things being equal, I'll gladly accept SVGs in their place. Category:Images which should be in SVG format is not empty. Neither is commons:Category:Images that should use vector graphics. Clearly there are many people who are in favor of a technological improvement despite PNGs not arousing problems. The move toward SVGs is not spearheaded by myself, which is pretty much your implication when you place the vast majority of wikipedians on "your side". IMHO, sticking with the "satisfactory" status quo simply for its sake is not a very good reason especially when your real complaint is aesthetics or, more specifically, "ugly[ness]".

On a side tangent, if the SVGs are redownloading ever time then that's the fault of your browser since I just confirmed via the HTTP response headers that the rendered PNG is being cached by the squid servers meaning they are not being reconverted. In other words, your "problem/experience" is not due to the fact that it's a PNG-rendered SVG. Cburnett 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for misspelling PNGs, if this offends you in any way! As for your work being 'ugly', I responded to what you said in your very first sentence "feel free to comment." 'Ugly' was the first comment that popped to my head, and I wasn't trying to start a conversation. I merely critisized your work. If there's any problem it's that you didn't accept my criticism. You simply remarked that it wasn't "constructive". (By the way, it is spelled "ugliness", and I am not even a native English speaker!)

Second of all, there isn't a single comment here, except yours, suggesting the the SVGs are better than the PNGs. I am only talking about the Chess project, non-chess-diagram pictures cannot be included as examples. I still don't see why the change from PNG to SVG only in the chess project is needed, or how it will change any thing.

Third of all, I am glad you said the problem is in my browser, because I use IE7. I can safely presume it is one of the most widely used browsers on the planet, can't I? The fact that they're being cached by the squid server (whatever this means) doesn't change anything about how my browser handles the images.

However, in order to stop the "battle", this is my final comment; you will not hear from me - in this page, at least - again. -Sibahi_talk 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to read WP:CIVIL: "Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project."

Saying "The SVGs look ugly!" speaks neither out of respect nor like a colleague and you're willingness to drop an insult without caring how it will be interpreted and having zero interest in explaining yourself speaks volumes about you. You seem to have zero care nor give any recognition that I'm trying to improve wikipedia in the ways that I can. If you don't like my work, FINE! But if you can't convey that civily and without insults then you best keep your thoughts to yourself because as WP:CIVIL says: "...we have every right to demand civility." Asking anyone to "feel free to comment" doesn't mean insults are fair game. Cburnett 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're taking requests, I'd love to see the pieces rendered in the classic USCF style, as seen in My 60 Memorable Games. This link shows an example: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3583. These pieces are IMHO much better looking than the ones we have now. (The sample link has an odd shading effect on the pieces that I dislike, but the shapes are good.) 165.189.91.148 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to put forth the effort but I won't until the little battle with Sibahi is settled or more people chime in and a larger discussion about this takes place. Cburnett 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Sibahi is withdrawing, then I'll wait for anyone else to chime in. I'm a nice guy and I won't bite your head off for chiming in or not liking my work. I welcome suggestions and input on how to improve my images. (I appreciate Bubba73's input immensly!) Just be civil about it... Cburnett 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Great job! However, I'm not really happy with the black knight. The spine almost grows out of its back. Can you move its top-part a little inwards, like in the png-version? And the black knight on white background has a completely different spine, it should be changed to match the rest.

About USCF-style pieces. The current form of the chess template is already the second one. There was a long debate and a vote of the looks of it. Certainly you are free to create those new images but let's not replace the ones used in the template with them. Neither should we create a new, different-looking template nor add a parameter to the current template, as concistency between the diagrams in different pages is very important. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose to switching

I guess let me ask (in parallel, comments definitely still welcome) if there's anyone opposed to or supporting of switching from PNGs to SVGs? Cburnett 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think in general it would be nice to switch to SVG. It will be much easier to create fairy chess pieces from existing vector graphics pieces then from bitmap ones. However, I think the current SVG images still need some work:

• "X" is too large, it should be of the same size as in PNG (since it is usually used to show where the piece can move)
• Black king has a strange white dot in the middle (not present in a larger image version - SVG rendering bug?)
• White shadow on black knights could be wider (just as on PNG equivalent)
• Black queen bottom part looks somewhat blurred.
• SVG images for 6 fairy pieces are needed (see list in Template talk:Chess diagram#Syntax), but this certainly could be done after images for standard pieces are settled.

Besides this we also need compare PNG vs. SVG for {{Chess diagram small}} template, which also used in many chess article. Andreas Kaufmann 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. I'll work on it when I get home tonight. (FYI: I modified your comment to use the {{tl}} template for easy linking. :) Cburnett 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Respone:

• "X" is reduced.
• The white dot has to do with the line being drawn. I can spend time trying to figure it out if it's that big of a deal
• Increased shadow on black knights
• PNG doesn't have a third line at the bottom so removing it made it look less cluttered
• Since several fairy pieces depend on the regular ones then I'll wait until they are settled to make the fairy ones

I will make a copy of {{Chess diagram small}} in a moment and place it above with the others. Cburnett 01:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

White dot on black king is quite distracting, it would be nice to fix it. I think you need to separate two white arcs with a vertical black line in the middle. This is how it is done in png version. Andreas Kaufmann 17:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article of interest peer review

Just an FYI, I'm working on bringing The Turk to featured article status. As one of the most famous chess-playing machines, it falls within this project's purview and is currently at peer review. Input and improvement would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT not being followed

I ran across one of the pages about opening chess moves and was startled to find opinions being given for responses to the moves. Describing a common move, defense, or opening is one thing - but the majority of articles at Category:Chess openings introduce original research and unverified claims. Who says if a response is "offbeat" or "lively"? And it's How-to info at best and pure OR at worst, to suggest a best response or list the variety of ways one might respond to an opening. After the guff I have to put up with while dealing with Pokemon related articles, I'm surprised that a topic that this has been allowed to succumb to so much OR and gamecruft. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Chess is not Pokemon. There exist a vast literature about chess openings and huge databases of master games here, so the articles are not OR, but mostly extracts from independently published sources. But I agree that they should be better referenced.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember writing many of these chess opening articles years back, and I can only apologize that I was not particularily conscientious of the need for sourcing things back then. But Ioannes is right that there is a wealth of chess literature, especially on openings which can back up nearly all, if not all the claims in those articles. For instance, an "irregular" opening is one with very few entries in a chess database, or one classified as "A00" by the ECO. You mentioned a concern that the article's labelling of some openings as offbeat or mainstream. Let's look at Damiano Defense. OK, it labels move 2...f6 with a "?". But it can be backed up: the Oxford Companion to Chess says that the move was "correctly" condemned by Damiano (who therefore got his name attached to the opening). For a comparison with paper encyclopedias, I can mention that my version of Aschehoug has a (very short) article on the Caro-Kann Defense which notes its reputation as a solid opening. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, good general references for all chess openings are Modern Chess Openings, Standard Chess Openings and Nunn's Chess Openings. In addition there are usually several good opening books on each of the major opening lines (some giving detailed description on a single variation of an opening), and for the non-major openings... well Eric Schiller and Joel Benjamin wrote a book called Unorthodox Chess Openings. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm acually aware that many of these things could be sourced (incidentally, many things about pokemon could be sourced, but that's a different arguement). The problem is that the large majority are not, these sources you're giving me would fit very nicely and remove (more appropriately) the "sense" of OR in these articles. There don't seem to be too many, and if many of them are found within the same reference then citing them should be a breeze. However, just citing a ref as these are written really isn't enough, it still sounds like advice. A better way might be to say something like "according to..." or "the ECO classifies this move as X meaning Y." -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read many of these articles, and I agree that they need to be sourced. Although a lot of it may appear to be original research or opinion, I think it could probably be properly sourced from standard opening books. But it does need to be sourced. Bubba73 (talk), 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I figured the ChessGames.com Opening Explorer may be used as a reference with claims such as "White continues most often with Qb3 or Rc1" and "Characteristic for Black is the ...c5 counter-thrust or the defensive ...c6" as in Grünfeld gambit. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just thought I'd chime in and concur, a lot of those pages are unsourced, and frankly, not very much more than a guide to playing that opening. That may be useful to folks who play chess, and can understand the articles, but me, I continue to be befuddled by them. I seriously think this Wikiproject needs to put the clean-up of Category:Chess openings on its to-do list. I'll go through and tag some of the unreferenced examples right now, just to point them out. Mister.Manticore 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well in all fairness, if you read WP:NOT and refer to the section on "Wiki is not paper" you can see that it's been said that as long as things are referenced (i.e. as long as someone has written about it, and that "it" already satisfies the condition of being notable, which chess does) there is no reason that wikipedia cannot contain information on the subject in order to be comprehensive - the example given is with Poker. My main problem is that while chess and poker are granted this clemency, many video game related articles are not, basically because they are oft cited as being gamecruft or gameguide. I think that the spirit of wiki not being paper and allowing discussion of strategy is so that all notable aspects of a subject are included. If the discussion of strategy in a game is notable enough to warrant published material by a reputable source (i.e. not my myspace blog) then that strategy should be included. For example, i would not expect to find an article on the strategies of War. The only thing is that strategy discussions NEED to be referenced because the opportunity for original research is so high. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, if you go to WP:NOT#IINFO, you'll see that just because something is written, doesn't mean it goes on Wikipedia. The subject of chess openings overall? No problem with it. The current category though, is a sprawling mess of minor openings and pages that are of dubious quality and merit. They are frequently no more than how-to guides and instruction manuals, written in what I'd consider overly technical terms. Perhaps great stuff for a Chess Wiki, but Wikipedia is meant to be general-purpose. I'm also concerned that List of chess openings is nothing more than a Directory.

Still, respecting that there may be something to be done, I'd go with trying to get some clean-up done. I'd help, but honestly, most of the time, I look at these articles and I'm scratching my head at the notation. So what I'm hoping to do is prod some action. Mister.Manticore 18:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the pronouncation of Lucena?

What is the pronouncation of Lucena? The Immortal Game says it is Loo-THAY-na. this says Lou-CHAYN-uh. Which is right? (I thought it was Lou-CHAYN-uh.) Bubba73 (talk), 00:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware of the Spanish pronunciation, it's (closer to) Lou-THAY-na. Besides, the information in the Immortal Game is sourced, unlike the random Geocities link you found. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true. I added the THAY pronounciation to the Lucena position article a couple hours ago. I don't think I've ever heard that though. When I first saw the name in print 35+ years ago, I thought "loo SEE na", but when I heard it pronounced, it was usually "ch". Bubba73 (talk), 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously those pronouncing it with "ch" (like "chat") do not know how to pronounce Spanish words. The "c" in Lucena should, as far as I know, be pronounced like "th" in "the" in English. Pronunciation instructions are always rather vague when written with latin alphabet like here, for the exact pronunciation we'd need to use the International Phonetic Alphabet. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 23:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked a foreign language professor, and he said:

Italian is Lu-Chain-a

Castillian Espanish is Lu-Thain-a

Messican Espanish is Lu-Sane-a. Bubba73 (talk), 00:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In IPA, I believe the "c" is pronounced as IPA "θ" ('theta'), the unvoiced dental frictactive, as in English "thin", as opposed to "ð" ('eth'), the voiced dental frictative, as in English "that", which I believe all flavours of Spanish lack, though there's a somewhat similar sound in the pronounciation of "d" in some positions, in some dialects (I'm hazier on this part). Alai 09:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant FAC nomination

Hey all. The Turk, an article that falls under the purview of this project, is currently a featured article candidate. Please share your input if you can. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Chess

Just saw that this was nominated for deletion, seems a bit of an orphan, so I figured it might escape people's attention. Figured I'd ask people here to comment on the AfD. Mister.Manticore 16:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ECO chess openings

User:Theandrewdotcom seems to have begun creating an article for each of the 500 ECO chess opening codes listed at List of chess openings. See his contributions list. So far he has created articles for 200 of the 500 codes.

I would question whether each of these codes are notable enough for their own article and suggest they should be merged into List of chess openings. I have left a comment to this effect on his talk page.

I think it might be appropriate to propose the deletion of each of these newly created articles but first seek the opinions and knowledge of participants of this project. Adambro 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oy, you're right. I'm going to report this to an administrator, it's a real problem and obviously a script. Mister.Manticore 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that we should not have an article for each of the 500 ECO codes. However, that should be the subject of a discussion within this project. Bubba73 (talk), 23:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Each of the 200 articles have been changed to redirect as part of a discussion of this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so it might be that this has been resolved. The user name in question has also been blocked due to violation of WP:U (Usernames that contain a domain or imply a web address). Adambro 12:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not convinced that these are good choices for redirects, but redirects are cheap, so I won't worry about it. Mister.Manticore 22:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox chess player

I've started the Template Infobox chess player, here. It still needs a lot of work, so feel free... Skarioffszky 15:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two important items

1. I've been working extensively to improve endgame tablebase to GA or FA status. The main reason I'm not submitting it yet is that the references are a hopeless mess (but they are cited!), and I'm not sure how to fix that. I'd appreciate if y'all would take a look and see in general how to improve the article.

2. As I was working on this article, it occurred to me that we should have a simple template at the top of any chess article with notation, saying the following:

This article uses algebraic chess notation to describe chess moves.

I find that a lot more coherent than the ad hoc method of inserting (see algebraic notation) in the middle of every article. I would have already created the template, but I don't know how. Do you folks think it's a good idea? YechielMan 08:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

not sure what your prob with the refs are... the only things i noticed was that a couple were pure external links, cite them with {{cite web}} between the ref tags; also Notes should be a subheading under References.

to create your template click here, and type

''This article uses [[algebraic chess notation]] to describe chess moves.''

in the edit box, then you just type {{acn}} at the beginning of the articles. More info at Help:Template. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)