Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimized Chess

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; optionally merge in part to some appropriate article. No one has put forth any substantial argument (as opposed to WP:ILIKEITs) to keep this article, which is unsurprising given that it contains no reliable sources and does not even attribute this chess variant to anyone. Whether some content is salvageable and should be merged to e.g. Capablanca random chess is an editorial decision. To allow for a merger, I am not deleting the article outright, but redirecting it to Capablanca random chess. Sandstein 22:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Optimized Chess

Optimized Chess (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (View log)

This article does not assert any notability for this chess variant, which according to the article was "discovered anonymously in 2006" by someone called "OmegaMan". However, because of the tendentious nature of chess articles, I'm bringing it to AfD rather than just requesting speedy deletion.

In any case, as I said, this is a chess variant which is a year old. A Google search brings up only 40 non-Wikipedia hits for "optimized chess" and very few of them refer to this game. Needless to say, but none of these are reliable sources. I cannot find any independent reliable sources which assert or support the notability of this game. I urge deletion for this article, and all associated redirects and links. Haemo 07:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This game has been much maligned unfairly and vandalized recently by zealots of Gothic Chess, a commercial product. See its talk page and the talk page for Optimized Chess to objectively assess the shocking extent of their financially-motivated dirtywork against this free game which significantly, surely includes the manipulation of a reputable editor Haemo by someone misinforming him. The timing of this action defies any likelihood of coincidence. Especially for a new game, it is well known with more references deep within the discussion boards of chess variant hobbyists than the editor who nominated it for deletion could possibly realize. There have also been many inspired imitations of its features by other new games. Just read the article and follow its references for strong indicators that this game is NOT insignificant. Both of the two strongest, free multi-variant programs in the chess variant world, SMIRF & ChessV, selected this game with customized support for it. The significance of SMIRF & ChessV are well above being disputed. With chess variants, the games and the chess variant programs that play the games are intermeshed. In other words, the significance that SMIRF & ChessV have gained is attributable to the games they play AND the significance that certain, select games have gained is attributable to being played by SMIRF & ChessV. Even Gothic Chess is supported by neither program! Therefore, the significance that Optimized Chess has already gained is impressive. In time, this significance is probable to grow. There are certainly games of lesser significance listed in Wikipedia that have never been nominated for deletion. Also, it needs a page of its own to describe its unique features with sufficient detail and clarity. --InfoCheck

• • Comment, Gothic Chess is not allowed to be in either program, as neither author will pay the licensing fee for U.S. Patent #6,481,716 which is required of all programs that implement a game that searches and plays the game of Gothic Chess. You know this fact, yet you deliberately mislead people with your remarks. --(still unsigned even after request was read)

• It is not my fault that Gothic Chess got itself excluded from the SMIRF & ChessV gamelists by being too expensive. You [Please sign your comments?] had the sole authority to prevent this unfortunate event by NOT being unreasonably greedy in negotiations. I never deceived anyone about Gothic Chess being a commercial product. That was clearly stated in the first sentence of the original remark. --InfoCheck

• The licensing fee is $1 for a one year license for a software product that is not resold. You should check your facts before making such incorrect assertions. Your statement was: "Even Gothic Chess is supported by neither program! Therefore, the significance that Optimized Chess has already gained is impressive." You tried to fool people with your statement, as if your variant was supported out of its own merit, or being preferred over Gothic Chess. You are now looking very foolish as the truth comes out. I told them to keep Gothic Chess out of their software, and they complied. Therefore, your statment is a deliberate attempt at misdirection. The more you lie about it, the worse you look, so please, add more fuel to the fire. I can't wait to hear your next explanation. --GothicChessInventor 04:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• It has become impossible to communicate with you. There are too many contradictions between your various, vague remarks. My mistake was trusting you as a reliable source of information. For doing so, you reprimand me harshly for having misimpressions of the facts (the way you provided them).

First- You say "neither author will pay the licensing fee" as if it was a big deal breaker.

Second- You say "the licensing fee is $1" to condescend me for thinking it was any more than chump change.

Third- You say "I told them to keep Gothic Chess out".

So, are you saying that you were "unreasonably rude, disrespectful and uncooperative" with Reinhard Scharnagl (SMIRF) & Gregory Strong (ChessV) in negotiations instead of "unreasonably greedy"? [Based upon my experiences, I have little difficulty in believing that.] Just be decisive, clear and rational. Tell me your version of reality regarding the simple $1 deals you somehow totally messed-up with both Scharnagl & Strong and we can be done with this absurd discussion. Then, I can enjoy being "extra civil" again. --InfoCheck

• Greg Strong said he did not want to pay $1 since he gave away his program for free under the GNU license, which prohibits monetary transactions of any kind. Reinhard is a native German speaker, and the technical terms in the contract did not translate in a manner that he felt comfortable with, and that's all. Michel Langeveld of The Netherlands had several Gothic Chess licenses at $1 per year, since his software was not for resale. BrainKing.com had three licenses at $1 each per year (2003, 2004, 2005) despite being a "for profit" business entity. HouseOfStaunton.com has a license to distribute Gothic Chess sets. Frank Camaratta is putting the finishing touches on his new Chancellor, then they will be offered for sale.

GothicChessInventor 04:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please note, this conversation is completely off-topic for this deletion debate. I urge you both to expend your energies here discussing the topic in hand (the notability, etc. of Optimized Chess), and not the ins and outs of the history of Gothic Chess. Oli Filth 08:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Well written article. Shabda 16:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Chess variants Mandsford 13:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into a more appropriate location like Chess variants or Capablanca Chess. I've yet to see a convincing argument as to the individual notability of this variant. The same might be done for Embassy Chess and Gothic Chess. Though Gothic at least has some news coverage (inadequately referenced in the article itself though). However, it does seem to me that there's a significantly troublesome bit of a fracas going on involving these pages. Something might need to be done about that. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Capablanca Chess. Actually it is already present there in "Variants that postdate Capablanca Chess" section, so just making it a redirect would be fine. The game is not notable enough to have a separate article. Andreas Kaufmann 18:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Chess is an exiting synthesis of decimal and dual approaches to board geometries preserving the Pawns' typical way to promotion and supporting all double combinations of Chess' elementary gaits of Rook, Bishop and Knight. Even though CRC covers most of the relevant named 10x8 starting arrays (or its mirrors) there is no need to hide some specialized models because of the existing of some more popular or commercial representants. Because of that it is to be welcomed, that some balanced starting arrays will get and improve their own named life. The public is invited to check out and popularize some of those approaches. But there is no need at all to extinguish references of such, e.g. simply because of the existence of a patented one. Sumerian 19:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid your argument isn't making much sense to me. Most of what you're talking about isn't directly related to the subject of this page. It would be much more appropriate to address the issue of notability directly, rather than digress into these issues. FrozenPurpleCube 20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge I think this would make a fine section of Capablanca Chess (due to having some objective standard of being among the "best" arrangements), but I don't see enough notability established for this particular arrangement in the article. Have there been tournaments, even? — brighterorange (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Those who are voting to merge this article (which will destroy most of its content) may be holding the bar unreachably high. We are talking about chess variants here- not CHESS. Very few chess variants listed on Wikipedia have EVER had a formal tournament held on their behalf. The game you are voting on has attained as much progress as can realistically be expected for almost any chess variant ... in just over one year. Please reconsider your votes if you do not understand what level of popularity is realistic to expect for chess variants. --InfoCheck
  • I'm sorry, but I'm not voting. I'm discussing. Your arguments have been unpersuasive to me. It doesn't matter whether I don't know what a chess variant can obtain, more importantly, you've not provided reliable, third-party sources that even tell us what it has obtained. The best I can say is, merge it, leave the article history behind, and wait till further notability develops. If you want to offer more argument as to its notability, it won't be by saying this is as notable as it gets. That's not very notable at all. FrozenPurpleCube 00:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's true, but that probably means that most chess variants shouldn't have articles. (But there are definitely chess variants that achieve notability, like Fischer Random Chess or Bughouse chess!) It's not that hard to make a variant, there are thousands, and certainly not all of them should have articles. — brighterorange (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd just like to mention at this point that something is not notable simply because you like it, the information is useful or because it's interesting. If the contention is, as above, that this is as notable as a chess variant can become, then perhaps none of them are notable — since they all, apparently, fail our guidelines. --Haemo 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I would not go as far as to appraise that none of the chess variants that have Wikipedia articles meet the guidelines for notability but I would agree with the assessment that only a minority do. Mind you, I am not at all inferring that I think there are too many chess variants mentioned on Wikipedia. In fact, to passionate hobbyists like myself, there are far too few. I consider this specialized area severely underdeveloped and virtually empty since est. 2000 exist in published form. Its light presence upon Wikipedia fails to satisfy my curiosity as a reader. As a long-term goal, Wikipedia should strive for more quality games with greater detail. By contrast, unexpectedly destroying a page at the initiation of one editor that several editors have spent time in good faith building into its current state is destructive and not at all humorous or trivial. Situations such as this should never occur. Anyone who cares about making a judicious decision should take some of these realities into account. --InfoCheck
    • Ahem, the reality is, there's nothing surprising on instantaneous about the decision being made in this case, but rather a 5-day discussion to achieve consensus among editors. If you wish to make your case, I don't suggest you make it on the basis of attacking what are reasonable practices that give you a fair chance to articulate the reasons why this article should be kept. Concentrating on what you consider the injudicious nature of this process isn't actually beneficial to that position, and instead comes across as less than persuasive. Now I do agree there are times when a nomination is unwise, however, this isn't obviously one of them, but I do see there's some sort of dispute going on. I'm concerned that may be distracting you, as you're not seeing the valid concerns others who aren't even involved in that dispute have brought up. I know I looked for reasonable sources on this variant, and I didn't find any. You may not think there's too many chess variants on Wikipedia, but I'm certainly concerned about their dubious inclusion of many subjects on an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Perhaps you might wish to try The Chess Wiki at Wikia.com instead? It looks like it could use some expansion and as a more specialized resource, it might have more open standards for inclusion. FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep AfD is not a run around to getting a link on the "see also" section of another page deleted. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not a really effective argument, as there's nothing stopping a "See Also" section from referring to an anchor and most of the comments here have suggested a merge. Besides, I don't know about anybody else, but my concerns aren't related to this other article at all. FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Seeing that I never replied to you, I am not sure how I could have categorized your concerns at all. AfD is not a proper forum to go shopping at after reaching a brick wall on a "See also" section inclusion. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • And I was just pointing out that my concerns aren't related to this other issue you're raising up. I honestly don't care about that at all, so your argument doesn't mean much to me. If you want to convince me this article should be kept, you'll have to address my own concerns. FrozenPurpleCube 01:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. Definitely an interesting variant of the the game, as outlined in the article. Embassy Chess should also be merged, as it is a nearly-identical game with a nearly identical article, so combining the two articles together into a single section on either Capablanca chess or Capablanca random chess would work well. Of course, the articles should be retained as redirects to the section in question, so the "see also" User:SevenOfDiamonds is concerned about losing could easily stay. JulesH 12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per above. Doesn't appear to be too notable but probably deserves mention. Same with Embassy Chess. ("discovered in 2005 by Kevin Hill", hahaha, Wikipedia articles say the darnedest things) Axem Titanium 14:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This are unique thoughts of a distinguished professional. Hey everyone knows who OmegaMan is, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.51.239.224 (talk • contribs)
  • Robert Neville? FrozenPurpleCube 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No but that is a logical guess (and a little tasteful humor is beneficial to all). The pen name discoverer is obviously a fan of the movie "The Omega Man". See the movie still at the bottom of this page: Opti Chess The real identify of OmegaMan has been common knowledge amongst many in the chess variant community since his first appearance. Recently, Derek Nalls put this note on Wikipedia for the benefit of editors: Opti Chess | talk See the "Right To Use Pen Name" section. --InfoCheck
      • Actually, the issue of a real identification would probably require going through something more robust than talk page and an e-mail. I think that'd be an OTRS resolved question. FrozenPurpleCube 23:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge All. This lacks notability for it's own variation, and as has been argued above, all the others really lack it too, Gothic Chess mostly seems to survive so well here because of the advocacy and hawkish oversight of it's inventor, who regularly regulates the article. As all of them, at a glance, seem to consist primarily of variant placements of the non-pawn figures at game start, and maybe some tactical options based on said placements, it's probably best to merge them all for the content, and then create a 'list of capablanca variants' page with a table of opening positions, titles, and notes for tactical variances. ThuranX 05:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with Capablanca chess or Capablanca random chess or into a new article with Embassy Chess and possible other related variants. Actually Optimized Chess does not even differ too much from Gothic Chess, whose main asset is that it has been aggressively marketed. Had Ed Trice ended up with the configuration Optimized Chess uses, we'd now be discussing the deletion of the Gothic Chess article. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 16:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's just one of over 10,000 Capablanca_random_chess games. It should be noted, that there is not one photograph of one pair of people who have ever played this game, including the inventor, Derek Nalls, who is InfoCheck of course. Think of this logic: If we keep this variant, then do we need 10,000 pages for all of the other Capablanca_random_chess games that are not being played also? This game exists on paper, on the pages of Wikipedia, and nowhere else. As for ZeroOne's remark that it is similar to Gothic Chess, that is simply not true. There is only 1 piece on the back rank that is similar, and that is the King's placement. All of the other 9 pieces are on different squares. As I am Ed Trice, I can tell you that I resent that ZeroOne is allowed to put words in my mouth. I suggest that he remove my name from the appropriate section of the above that he made. Take a look at the diagrams shown here: <diagrams removed by User:Isotope23... see them at the bottom of the page here> GothicChessInventor 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, as the claimed inventor of GothicChess you might be perceived as having a conflict of interest here, thus I suggest you carefully restrain your commenting as it could be your participation might be inflammatory. Thus it'd be best to keep your words extra civil. The same would go with Infocheck, if your claim that he is the person who invented Optimized Chess is true. FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, Did anyone read the opening remark on this page for "keep"? It was a malicious remark made against me for no apparent reason. This was suppose to be about the variant that is slated for removal, and I had nothing to do with it. That person should be the one subject to conflict of interest focus, as it is his own game that he is defending.GothicChessInventor 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, that as may be, I think this situation demonstrates the value of careful discretion before getting involved in subjects where one or more parties have a personal interest. And yes, I was bothered about it when I first began reading this discussion. It does trouble me. However, AFD is not the place to resolve that. I just hope it doesn't have to go to arbitration. FrozenPurpleCube 01:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, would you mind removing the diagrams? They're likely to mess up the formatting of this discussion, and I don't feel they add much to the discussion. If you do wish to use them, putting something up in your user space and linking to it might be better. FrozenPurpleCube
    • Comment I don't see you mentioned in the opening comment. You appear to be interpreting the phrase "zealots of Gothic Chess" as a reference to yourself, whereas I don't believe it was intended to be one. JulesH 22:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I like JulesH's idea. --Chuck Sirloin 21:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per ThuranX and ZeroOne. MookieZ 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I removed the diagrams that were messing up the formatting of the AFD, but I left a link to history if anyone cares to see them.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This chess variant is a very recent invention (2006 according to the article), and I cannot see that it has gained much independent attention, nor a wide enough audience of players to make it notable. Inventing new versions of chess is easy, making them notable is hard but essential to make it a valid topic. Several variants have gained a real claim to notability due to a large player base and/or mention in other references (e.g. bughouse chess and kriegspiel), but it is far too early to tell if this is one of them. (On another note, calling this game "optimized chess" is rather presumptious and looks like a marketing gimmick, how is this game "optimized" compared to just plain chess?) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• The game is free. So, any "marketing gimmick" is not applicable. The game got its name "optimized" (not intended to sound presumptuous) as the discoverer's attempt to describe the unusually-high stability or defensive strength of its select CRC position. There are only two CRC positions that meet the long list of criteria on its page. --InfoCheck

• Everything you mention above is all hype. Defensive strength? Nobody plays this game. There is not one photograph showing anyone play. The game exists on paper and Wikipedia only. I showed your setup to a National Master, who said: "No chess player in their right mind would play this." If you want, I can have this annoucement made on chess.fm this Thursday night for verification. I'll save it as an MP3 file so every chess variant page can link to it. --GothicChessInventor 04:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge because:

1. I do not want to vote for Delete as I appreciate the work InfoCheck and others have done on this article, which looks like much more than a stub. This article is doing no harm by itself, and I generally prefer to greet than to delete :-)
2. I cannot vote for Keep because this article seems to have zero notability, and this is a silver-bullet argument for me. The role of Wikipedia is not to give new games their chance, whether they deserve it or not. The role of Wikipedia is to talk about games that have already gained fame. SyG 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to the chess variants page. Well written article. But it completely fails Wikipedia:Notability. Nyttend 00:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. No less notable than many other game variants which have their own article, and a game this young should have plenty of time to gain popularity and additional information.(RookZERO 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
• Keep after reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User InfoCheck Violating 3 Revert Rule I can no longer assume good faith in the editors asking deletion. -- Petri Krohn 23:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • How about me? You only need one good argument to convince deletion, and should think a 1-year old chess variant that gets 40 GHits and is credited to someone named "OmegaMan" probably isn't notable. --Haemo 00:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • My point is that it only exists on Wikipedia, it is not played anywhere. No photograph of anyone playing it exists, not even by the creator. A game is not a game if it has never been played. There is not one "move list" showing a completed game. There is not a website dedicated to it. It exists merely in the mind of its creator. Therefore, why have it at all? Let him build up demand for his game and resubmit it for consideration when he has an audience that extends beyond himself. You can see from his own writing that he wants to use Wikipedia to "advertise" for it, by his own admission. GothicChessInventor 04:18, 18 August 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.