Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess Opening Theory Table
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. There was some acceptance of a rename, but no viable rename offered or supported. I shall nevertheless move this to its correct capitalisation (and from my personal knowledge of chess theory, and Batsford et. al this name is fine anyway). -Splash 02:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Chess Opening Theory Table
Original research. In all my years of playing chess, I've never heard of a "Chess Opening Theory Table" as such, and a search for those words in google in a string reveals only one google hit (and that's just because the words 'table-tenis' happened to follow 'chess opening theory'. If you do not know chess, you should at least recognize that chess is a highly internetized game, and that any known chess term would produce many hits through google. Delete. Themindset 06:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- If they were common, I'd expected far more than just one google hit. Delete unless sourced. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a standard way of showing moves in chess -- much like algebraic notation. This is certainly not original research. This type of table is common in all chess opening books. An example of this type of table in a copyrighted book is available on page 6 of Modern Chess Openings (MCO) (viewable online) for the King's Gambit -- this should answer Mgm's request for a source. Furthermore, I'd like to link to this wikipedia entry to explain the notation I/we intend to use in Opening Theory. While the description of the table notation is not complete, this is how opening lines are decomposed and explained in a small space. I would be happy to consider a different title though, as I have always heard these table referred to simply as "Theory Tables" -- which is a bit generic without the addition of "Chess Opening." Finally, I have added additional content to the article that I think provides a clearer idea of the concept. More to follow! ThreeE
- COMMENT - My issue with this is that sure, tables have been used for chess opening theory... but tables have been used for everything. From car pollution, to long-distance rates, to lawnmower efficiency. There is nothing to indicate that a "Chess Opening Theory Table" is anything more than one of the many tables created in the world for an almost infinite amount of subjects; and, as such, is not deserving of its own article. (Please note that there is no consistent methodology for writing such tables, and the one's in the article and the references are all formatted differently.) Themindset 18:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually there is a consistent methodology -- the way that moves are presented and lines are expanded off of previous lines. This is quite similar to describing chess moves in other standard ways that are presented in articles on wikipedia -- like the PGN standard and the like. Pretty much every chess opening book dedicates a page or two to explaining this type of table, and for most part, the approach is the same. In fact, both the Nunn book and the MCO book use the same format. Any reader not familiar with the format will require an explanation and an article would be appropriate. In addition, there is some very interesting history on how these tables have evolved over the centuries. These facts and the "when in doubt, don't delete" philosophy should justify this article. For gosh sake, we have an articles on tables of contents, and on tables themselves -- will you delete them too? They are certainly no more wiki-worthy... ThreeE 18:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- If any of this was true, there would be at least one hit for "Chess theory table" or "Chess opening theory table" on google. Unfortunately, aside from the one coincidental hit listed above, there are zero hits. Themindset 19:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Explain to me why the number of hits on a search engine is a criterion for deletion? I am perfectly willing to entertain a name change to the article, but explaining how this notation works is directly analogous to, say, explaining how the notation in the periodic table represents elements. The fact that it is a table is really not important. What is important is explaining to the lay-reader how these diagrams represent chess opening theory -- and more importantly how these diagrams evolve. Diagrams like this have been used by Grandmasters for centuries. I think the demonstrable benefits outweigh the chance that we have a topic "not deserving" of an article. ThreeE 23:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- But that's just the thing: the periodic table IS important because it's a table. That particular way of laying out the elements, in that chart, completely changed the way we think about atoms, and even helped predict the properties of atoms that had not yet been discovered. Did putting Chess Opening Theory into a table do that for Chess Opening Theory? If you can make a compelling argument for it, I will gladly change my vote. JDoorjam 14:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- These tables are the basis of how chess opening theory is communicated. No doubt the periodic table is of greater significance -- chess is, after all, just a game. But the principle is the same. For many players, these tables represent a standard way of laying out the lines of play, and when chess players move from being a beginner to being an amateur, they discover this type of depiction. That discovery changes the way they think about the opening. Often, they make the mistake of thinking they have to memorize these tables -- and then they figure out that no one, not even a GM could do that. This leads to the idea of a plan in the opening -- the real discovery. Each opening has a set of properties -- themes if you will -- that these tables can lead you to. So I say yes, these tables do the same thing for chess that the periodic table does for, the much more important topic, of science.
- If it was so important, why wouldn't there be even one hit on google? This is a misrepresentation of fact. These are just tables, like any other, of no significance, importance, or effect on the game of chess. If they did have any importance, there would be google hits. And to answer your earlier question, google hits are considered a measure of notability on wikipedia - especially when it concerns a subject that is popular on the internet (read: chess). Themindset 18:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- My last comment on the google issue -- this question has been asked and answered above. These tables are all over the internet, and are referred to as they are in the article: Opening Theory Tables. Links, found using google, are provided above. Furthermore, the number of google hits is one way to establish notability -- there are others. ThreeE 18:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- If it was so important, why wouldn't there be even one hit on google? This is a misrepresentation of fact. These are just tables, like any other, of no significance, importance, or effect on the game of chess. If they did have any importance, there would be google hits. And to answer your earlier question, google hits are considered a measure of notability on wikipedia - especially when it concerns a subject that is popular on the internet (read: chess). Themindset 18:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- These tables are the basis of how chess opening theory is communicated. No doubt the periodic table is of greater significance -- chess is, after all, just a game. But the principle is the same. For many players, these tables represent a standard way of laying out the lines of play, and when chess players move from being a beginner to being an amateur, they discover this type of depiction. That discovery changes the way they think about the opening. Often, they make the mistake of thinking they have to memorize these tables -- and then they figure out that no one, not even a GM could do that. This leads to the idea of a plan in the opening -- the real discovery. Each opening has a set of properties -- themes if you will -- that these tables can lead you to. So I say yes, these tables do the same thing for chess that the periodic table does for, the much more important topic, of science.
- But that's just the thing: the periodic table IS important because it's a table. That particular way of laying out the elements, in that chart, completely changed the way we think about atoms, and even helped predict the properties of atoms that had not yet been discovered. Did putting Chess Opening Theory into a table do that for Chess Opening Theory? If you can make a compelling argument for it, I will gladly change my vote. JDoorjam 14:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Explain to me why the number of hits on a search engine is a criterion for deletion? I am perfectly willing to entertain a name change to the article, but explaining how this notation works is directly analogous to, say, explaining how the notation in the periodic table represents elements. The fact that it is a table is really not important. What is important is explaining to the lay-reader how these diagrams represent chess opening theory -- and more importantly how these diagrams evolve. Diagrams like this have been used by Grandmasters for centuries. I think the demonstrable benefits outweigh the chance that we have a topic "not deserving" of an article. ThreeE 23:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- If any of this was true, there would be at least one hit for "Chess theory table" or "Chess opening theory table" on google. Unfortunately, aside from the one coincidental hit listed above, there are zero hits. Themindset 19:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually there is a consistent methodology -- the way that moves are presented and lines are expanded off of previous lines. This is quite similar to describing chess moves in other standard ways that are presented in articles on wikipedia -- like the PGN standard and the like. Pretty much every chess opening book dedicates a page or two to explaining this type of table, and for most part, the approach is the same. In fact, both the Nunn book and the MCO book use the same format. Any reader not familiar with the format will require an explanation and an article would be appropriate. In addition, there is some very interesting history on how these tables have evolved over the centuries. These facts and the "when in doubt, don't delete" philosophy should justify this article. For gosh sake, we have an articles on tables of contents, and on tables themselves -- will you delete them too? They are certainly no more wiki-worthy... ThreeE 18:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT - My issue with this is that sure, tables have been used for chess opening theory... but tables have been used for everything. From car pollution, to long-distance rates, to lawnmower efficiency. There is nothing to indicate that a "Chess Opening Theory Table" is anything more than one of the many tables created in the world for an almost infinite amount of subjects; and, as such, is not deserving of its own article. (Please note that there is no consistent methodology for writing such tables, and the one's in the article and the references are all formatted differently.) Themindset 18:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful way to organize links to different openings. Kappa 12:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)No vote at the moment Kappa 16:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
*Delete. A table is simply a method of organizing data. A table is itself notable as an organizational method; however, its use for a particular set of data is not notable unless it completely shifts the paradigms surrounding such data, such as the periodic table. (And it should be pointed out that a no vote from Kappa is like a vehemently strong delete from most VfDers... ;) ) JDoorjam 19:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- I'm still trying to figure out if this is OR or not. Kappa 22:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is a very common way of showing chess moves. It is in MCO and all forms of Chessbase software, and I think Bookup as well. Wikipedia would do well to have an article explaining the format. --malathion talk 20:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Can't that be explained in one clause of one sentence on the Chess Opening Theory page? "..., usually displayed in table form,..."? JDoorjam 01:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly. There is no consistent way of presenting such tables either (some are rotated 90 degrees, some include variation names, etc.), so having this page on wikipedia would actually be a form of misinformation. Themindset 05:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Good point -- some are in different fonts too! Of course these issues don't stop organizational charts from having an article either. ThreeE 15:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- organizational charts get 189,000 hits on google. 'Chess Opening Theory Table' and 'Chess Theory Table' get a combined 1 hit, and that 1 hit is unrelated. Themindset 18:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Good point -- some are in different fonts too! Of course these issues don't stop organizational charts from having an article either. ThreeE 15:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly. There is no consistent way of presenting such tables either (some are rotated 90 degrees, some include variation names, etc.), so having this page on wikipedia would actually be a form of misinformation. Themindset 05:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Can't that be explained in one clause of one sentence on the Chess Opening Theory page? "..., usually displayed in table form,..."? JDoorjam 01:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Another victory for idioctic googl
ersing if this gets deleted based on the lack of many hits for the literal string "chess opening theory tables". Nice way of using redunant (in the context of a chess page) prefix, and plural form of the object to cut out relevant hits and present a nice concise statistic for deletionist apologism. Come up with proper arguments for deleting articles on specialist subjects, rather than lazily conducting a skewed popularity contest. --zippedmartin 22:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)- We'd gone really, really far in this discussion without attacking one another, or accusing anyone of intentionally trying to misrepresent the facts. I would ask that you do not turn this into ad hominem sniping. Clearly there are people who are passionately in favor of keeping this. Here are the questions that still linger for me:
- Is there a reason why the "Chess Opening Theory Table" (COTT) should not simply be a part of "Chess Opening Theory" (COT)?
- It would make the already long COT page too long. It seems wise to me to separate the theory from the way the theory is recorded. I do not, however, have a problem with this. I suspect the COT article authors would however. It would be simpler to put the opening tables on the COT page and link to COTT page for interpretation instructions. ThreeE 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Do COTTs have a developmental history to them, separate from COT?
- Yes. Before COTTs, games were studied one by one. COTTs came along as COT matured. COTTs are now generated on the fly by huge chess databases that are updated weekly. ThreeE 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Have COTTs changed the way we think about COT?
- Yes. GMs use COTT and other tools to find and research novelties -- sometimes right before and even between games at tournaments. I'm not saying COTTs are the only tool, but it is how the huge amount of data in these chess databases are distilled for the human brain to work with. ThreeE 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why the "Chess Opening Theory Table" (COTT) should not simply be a part of "Chess Opening Theory" (COT)?
- I'm not laying these out as definitive criteria, I'm just personally curious about them. Again, obviously people are passionate about this; I'm just struggling to understand why, exactly. JDoorjam 22:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- My passion (scary as it may be) is that I would love for there to be a wiki version of the opening books (like Nunn's book). This would allow kibitzing to go on for each point in the opening tree. Some sites exist out there to do this for games (like chessgames), but none allow this for the opening. Chess Opening Theory would allow this, on an open platform, but it also needs to provide a description of the format -- which is more appropriately put on wikipedia. If this forum decides it is not "notable," I guess I'll just move it there. I wish someone would explain the passion people have for deleting what seems to be a reasonable article. ThreeE 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. As I said from my first posting, that's really all I wanted. Keep the article after all. Cheers, JDoorjam 23:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- My passion (scary as it may be) is that I would love for there to be a wiki version of the opening books (like Nunn's book). This would allow kibitzing to go on for each point in the opening tree. Some sites exist out there to do this for games (like chessgames), but none allow this for the opening. Chess Opening Theory would allow this, on an open platform, but it also needs to provide a description of the format -- which is more appropriately put on wikipedia. If this forum decides it is not "notable," I guess I'll just move it there. I wish someone would explain the passion people have for deleting what seems to be a reasonable article. ThreeE 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- We'd gone really, really far in this discussion without attacking one another, or accusing anyone of intentionally trying to misrepresent the facts. I would ask that you do not turn this into ad hominem sniping. Clearly there are people who are passionately in favor of keeping this. Here are the questions that still linger for me:
-
-
-
- Mildly reworded, as it's the habit that needs fixin', not the person. You might want to clarify your line above though if that keep means you've changed your mind, your comment on kappa kinda looks like a vote. --zippedmartin 00:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, that quotation, meant in jest, has already been taken and used out of context as a means of assault on a different page. Anyway, see revised. JDoorjam 03:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Mildly reworded, as it's the habit that needs fixin', not the person. You might want to clarify your line above though if that keep means you've changed your mind, your comment on kappa kinda looks like a vote. --zippedmartin 00:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep, (or possibly rename if there is a more common term for this way of presenting analysis). This method of presenting chess opening analysis is the one used in well known works of opening literature such as Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, and I have also seen it in Batsford Chess Openings and other similar works. This deserves an article, and we shouldnt rely on google to measure the notability of things which are hard to title. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Rename. The subject is encylopedic, and the thing described really exists and is a common convention, as others have noted above. But if nobody actually calls this kind of table a "Chess opening theory table", then including the article under that title is bad policy. -- Dominus 15:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Rename. I'm willing to change my vote as Dominus has elucidated my main concern, no one uses this terminology. Find a naming that is common, and I will gladly support. Themindset 16:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Why not change the name to chess opening tree? That's a real name, and that's what chessbase and everyone else refers to opening charts as. Themindset 06:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Rename to Chess opening table. The term theory table is used only by Scid. The term chess opening tree refers to slightly different presentation of openning lines. See for example this article. It contains screenshot of both opening tree and opening table. Andreas Kaufmann 07:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- I would support Chess Opening Theory Table (my favorite as it is today), Chess Opening Table (fine, but the whole point is the theory), or Opening Table (problematic with other games' opening tables). A Chess Opening Treee is a different format as pointed out by Andreas above. In summary, Chess: specifying the game, Opening: specifying the area of interest, Theory: what is being presented, and Table: because of the unique format that the article is, after all, describing. ThreeE 12:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- At the very least, if you want "Chess Opening Theory Table", the last three words should be uncapitalized, hence Chess opening theory table. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yep -- I concur. ThreeE 12:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- At the very least, if you want "Chess Opening Theory Table", the last three words should be uncapitalized, hence Chess opening theory table. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- I would support Chess Opening Theory Table (my favorite as it is today), Chess Opening Table (fine, but the whole point is the theory), or Opening Table (problematic with other games' opening tables). A Chess Opening Treee is a different format as pointed out by Andreas above. In summary, Chess: specifying the game, Opening: specifying the area of interest, Theory: what is being presented, and Table: because of the unique format that the article is, after all, describing. ThreeE 12:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. useful. Trollderella 01:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
