Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fischer's endgame

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and mention in Bobby Fischer article. As a side note, I turned the page into a redirect after deleting it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fischer's endgame

Fischer's endgame (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

No Few other references to it, may refer to a single game. Bubba73 (talk), 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not heard of this other than on Wikipedia. I searched for the phrase on Google, and all I found (other than WP and mirrors) were uses of the phrase in the context of a sentence such as "Fischer's endgame technique was ...". It may refer to the ending in a single game. Bubba73 (talk), 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to refer to the ending of a single game (see article's external link). Soltak | Talk 00:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Certainly the game Fischer/Taimanov existed as described. But as the ending therein is fully described in the well-known book on chess endgames by Reuben Fine, which was written well before this game, the article appears unnecessary.--Anthony.bradbury 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is the length within the category (Chess endgames), might be merged to Fischer after deletion. --Brand спойт 01:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in putting that info in the Bobby Fischer article. In Western literature, I haven't seen any reference to this as "Fischer's endgame", so one of the reasons why deleting it should be considered is that it isn't WP:Notable. Bubba73 (talk), 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've merged a copyedited version to the Fischer article. --Brand спойт 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Bubba. The only reference to the term "Fischer's endgame" is in a Russian source which might make it suitable for the Russian wikipedia, but there's no evidence that this term is ever used in English. That makes it a neologism at best. As noted by others, the endgame itself was well known both in tournament practice and in endgame literature decades before the Fischer-Taimanov game at issue. Quale 10:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Quale and Bubba. Only one single source (I am not even sure if that book really wanted to call such endgames Fischer's endgames in general) and not in any way a common term. (That Rook+Bishop is stronger than Rook+Knight is also quite debatable, there are great variations from position to position) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Strong keep - I used to play chess on a high school team and this was a classic match Fischer was involved in. After winning the match, Fischer became a big fan of this endgame and advocated it. A Yahoo search for the term, Fischer's endgame 1971 Taimanov yields several commentaries of it including this Java enabled version of the match, PDF analysis and other articles. The article is poorly written and could stand wikification and cleanup. Ronbo76 16:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The endgame did occur twice in the 1971 Taimanov match and once between them in the interzonal tournament the previous year. It is also the second most common type of endgame (see Endgame#Table of the most common endings). The external article you link to states that Fischer was especially good at playing the side with the bishop (with those three impressive wins over Taimanov, for example). However, I haven't found any English reference naming it "Fischer's Endgame". Bubba73 (talk), 05:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This was one of Fischer's candidate matches which was a requirement to challenge the chess champion, Boris Spassky in 1971 (please see our Wiki article on Bobby Fischer and the paragraph, The road to the world championship (1969-1972). This is also commentated in this article. It is over time that this endgame has been proved to have a weakness (as all new winning variations usually do). The reason you see pathetic is a commentary on Fischer's eccentric life especially after he failed to defend beating Spassky for the championship in 1972. This might be a better candidate for a merge. Ronbo76 16:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing specifically about this game in the external article you link to. It was one game out of quite a few, although it was an interesting game. Bubba73 (talk), 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rename. If this title is a neologism in English, it is also ambiguous: the article might be about Bobby Fischer's endgame play generally, rather than a specific combination of pieces on each side. On the other hand, an article on chess endgames with Rook+Knight vs Rook+Bishop describes a real position and has potential for expansion. I'm certainly open to suggestions about where it might be moved to. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to Fischer's endgame 1971 and expand. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per TeckWiz. -Toptomcat 00:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this information is simply wrong. This type of endgame, or evaluation of such, is not named after Fischer like the article suggests. This is either a mis-translation of the Russian cited , or the original author took some serious liberties. You won't find any other sources to corroborate. The 1971 game(s) vs. Taimanov are not really notable by themselves either. At best they should get a brief mention in the Bobby Fischer article. SubSeven 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I added the endgame at Zugzwang#Example from actual play because it contains two zugzwang positions, and the article didn't have an example of zugzwang in the endgame from an actual game. However, it is later in the endgame after the rooks have been exchanged. Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Translation I had AltaVista translate a paragraph from the Russian source, and it does say that the endgame is named after Fischer:

  Many generations of chess players made their first motions on the board with the aid of the brilliant textbook of the second champion of the peace Jose Raoult Capablanca. There among the wise councils of great knots are similar: in the ends the boat and elephant, as a rule, are stronger than the boat and horse, as a rule, this the sufficiently open nature of position. Then in the match Robert Fisher- Mark taymanov (1971) were played several endgames surprising on the beauty precisely with this relationship, after which this relationship began to bear the name - Fisher endgame. Specifically, this end obtained computer. Although in its cold memory all parties of Robert Fisher are stored, to demonstrate anything similar for computer it was impossible. It is here necessary to note the very good protection of blacks. Motions: 24....Kg", 35... L.d', 47....fshch - this is evidence of the deepest penetration into the secrets of position.

  Bubba73 (talk), 15:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I have a reasonably strong acquaintance with post-1980 literature chess endgame theory. Fischer-Taimanov 1971 (4) is generally considered a technical masterpiece (see Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, vol. 54, pp. 389-93); Kasparov does cite its influence on his generation, but more for the pure bishop vs. knight ending (p. 393). Also see Shereshevsky, Endgame Strategy, pp. 179-81. Are we going to have articles on Fischer-Unzicker, Siegen 1970 (another masterpiece), or Capablanca-Tartakover, NY 1924 (whose influence can be seen in the final game of the Kramnik-Leko WC match or Topalov's win against Kasimjanov in the 2006 WC)? Nonstandard, even in the Russian literature. Billbrock 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. Fischer botched a won ending in game 2 of the same match: Balashov called 50.c5?! "a surprising error for a player of such a high class"; and Kasparov writes that Fischer's 52.Ra2? "shows that Fischer has lost the thread of the game" (MGP 4:383). Billbrock 16:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC) corrected typo Billbrock 23:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Bill means volume 4, not volume 5 above. Bubba73 (talk), 16:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Billbrock's comments on delete seem to indicate it was cited by Kasparov which means it meets WP:BIO in that this person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs)

• Comment No one doubts Fischer's contributions to chess. (There is plenty of information about Fischer in WP.) The issue is whether or not the endgame of rook and bishop versus rook and knight (with pawns) is commonly known as "Fischer's endgame", and whether or not it is notable (WP:NOTE), which says that there should be two independant sources in order to be notable. Fifty years before the 1971 match, Capablanca's 1921 book Chess Fundamentals states that the bishop is better. The endgame is also discussed thirty years earlier in Fine's 1941 Basic Chess Endings. Recently, this article by endgame expert Karsten Muller discusses three games between Fischer and Taimanov in 1970 and 71, but does not call it "Fischer's endgame". Also recently, My Great Predecessors by Kasparov discusses it but does not call it "Fischer's endgame". The only source we have been able to find is the Russian one, and it is a little wishy-washy. The translation says that "it began to be called...". Perhaps it did began to be called "Fischer's endgame", but the name doesn't seem to have stuck. I favor deletion on the basis that it is a non-notable stub. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In adition, Soltis examines one of these games in Bobby Fischer Rediscovered (game 90) and even says it is "perhaps Fischer's most famous endgame", but does not mention "Fischer's Endgame". And the Oxford Companion to Chess (first edition) lists "Fischer Attack" and "Fischer defense", but no "Fischer endgame". Bubba73 (talk), 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference found. Well, after quite a bit of searching, I found a reference in English. From Fundamental Chess Endings, by Karsten Muller and Frank Lamprecht, page 304, "... has sometimes been dubbed the 'Fischer Endgame' in view of a number of instructive wins by Fischer." This has a bearing on my earlier remarks. However, I'm still in favor of deleting it because it isn't very significant. I think it can be mentioned in the Bobby Fischer article. Bubba73 (talk), 01:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea is notable; the term (and thus the encylopedia entry) is not. I refer the interested reader to Kasparov and Agur to get an appreciation of the wide variety of Fischer's contributions to chess theory. Does each one of these ideas get an article? The catalogue would be Borgesian. Billbrock 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It (the idea) is notable, as a lot of others are too, but it doesn't deserve an article under this title. Bubba73 (talk), 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have several books about Fischer and I will look and try to find further references. I have recently published an article on a specific endgame (K+R vs K+R+B) in http://www.chessville.com/Dothan/index.htm (article 10) and it seems that a deep analysis of an endgame should be on a chess site and not in wikipedia, unless we want to develop a branch of wikipedia that deals with endgame technique. After reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chess_games and seeing 16 games (there could be much more!!!) I thought why not do a similiar category of famous endgames? This is certainly one of them. --YoavD 11:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a few articles on endgames, but they are general and not from specific games. Bubba73 (talk), 15:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Both Endgame Strategy by Shereshevsky and Secrets of Chess Endgame Strategy by Hansen discuss the ending between Fischer and Taimanov, but neither of them call it the "Fischer endgame". I like the idea of an article about famous endgames from actual games, but I still think this article should be deleted. Bubba73 (talk), 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The brand-new book Silman's Complete Endgame Course by Jeremy Silman also discusses the Fischer-Taimanov endgame, but it does not mention it being called the "Fischer endgame" either. Bubba73 (talk), 18:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I added this information to the Fischer article Bobby Fischer#Fischer Endgame. Bubba73 (talk), 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete First of all, if this were about any other board game besides chess, it wouldn't even have gotten to AfD. I don't even think a general-interest encyclopedia should be covering individual chess matches, much less parts of individual chess matches. We certainly wouldn't tolerate an article on, say, an individual inning of a baseball game, for example. Besides, given the wealth of information on Fischer, including a number of full-length books, we should have plenty of sources for this if it's something he's famous for, but I couldn't even manage a single Google Books hit for either "Fischer's endgame" or "Fischer endgame". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If anyone seriously believes that before Fischer, folks didn't know that R & B (in the general case, with many exceptions) were stronger than R & N, they're naive. If someone can't articulate a particular contribution to endgame theory made by Fischer in game 4 of the Taimanov match, this article should go. Game 2 of the same match is notable only for the atypically blunder-filled play of both players; the Palma 1970 game was well-played but otherwise non-notable.
• Delete Quite simply put, there's no indication that this is widely known as Fischer's endgame. Pascal.Tesson 23:38, 27 January 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.