Talk:Polish Defense
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Polish Defense Deferred
A google search suggests that 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 b5 is sometimes called the Polish Defense Deferred, so I put that in the article and added a diagram. Quale 01:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Importance tag removed
I removed the importance tag. The edit summary I used points out the use of the opening in the 1966 World Championship final. Moreover, there exists a whole book written on the opening, [1], but I don't have it unfortunately. My MCO has gone missing (that's about as horrible as the pope losing his bible, but there you have it) so can someone check that the article here fits with that source, and change it if necessary? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, I'm not convinced one single match is enough on its bare existence to establish its notability, especially since the person lost. This applies even at a world championship match. Really, there were 22 games in that championship alone. That tends to dilute the meaningfulness of any one particular defense or opening, even when it was the final one. Was there significant commentary or other response to the use of the defense in that match? Noting a specific reaction would be a very convincing way to improve the establishment of notability in this article. So I'm re-adding the tag. Get back to me when you've improved it. FrozenPurpleCube 15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, the same applies to the mention of play by Karpov. So he's played that set of moves. He's probably played dozens of sets of moves. Seeking either comment by him, or comment by others noting some significance to that play would be appropriate to importance. For example, if he wrote a book or essay about it. That'd mean a lot. Or if he played it in a large number of his games. Right now, it's just lacking specific explanation as to his play of it, so we can't judge the importance. FrozenPurpleCube 15:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- FrozenPurpleCube, I hope you take this advice in the spirit in which it is offered. I strongly urge you to stop hectoring Wikipedians like Sjakkalle who far greater experience and respect in the Wikipedia community than you have. Don't order them around or tell them what to do ("Get back to me when you've improved it.") As hard as this might be for you to swallow, other Wikipedia contributors do not work for you, nor do they answer to you. If you wonder why you often provoke negative reactions, you ought to consider your own behavior. It isn't too late to turn this around, but you've gotten off to a bad start. Quale 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- And I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I'm going to ask you to once against, comment on the content, not the contributor. This is especially important in your case because of your pattern of past personal attacks against me. That's truly destroyed any shred of respect I might have for you or advice you might have to offer. Therefore, if you are truly concerned about what I'm saying, I suggest you try WP:WQA instead to let a neutral, uninvolved editor make any suggestions. Otherwise, stick to the subject of the article. Thanks. FrozenPurpleCube 22:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- FrozenPurpleCube--I saw the link to here from WQA. After checking your contributions here and to several related talk pages I think Quale's suggestions are valid and you should follow them. 75.62.7.22 07:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input, but I'm disinclined to follow the advice of an anonymous IP address since you could be any number of people who decided to log-out and try to anonymously swing support for your side. Pardon me if I seem suspicious, but sockpuppetry is a common problem. FrozenPurpleCube 13:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- FrozenPurpleCube--I saw the link to here from WQA. After checking your contributions here and to several related talk pages I think Quale's suggestions are valid and you should follow them. 75.62.7.22 07:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- And I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I'm going to ask you to once against, comment on the content, not the contributor. This is especially important in your case because of your pattern of past personal attacks against me. That's truly destroyed any shred of respect I might have for you or advice you might have to offer. Therefore, if you are truly concerned about what I'm saying, I suggest you try WP:WQA instead to let a neutral, uninvolved editor make any suggestions. Otherwise, stick to the subject of the article. Thanks. FrozenPurpleCube 22:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- FrozenPurpleCube, I hope you take this advice in the spirit in which it is offered. I strongly urge you to stop hectoring Wikipedians like Sjakkalle who far greater experience and respect in the Wikipedia community than you have. Don't order them around or tell them what to do ("Get back to me when you've improved it.") As hard as this might be for you to swallow, other Wikipedia contributors do not work for you, nor do they answer to you. If you wonder why you often provoke negative reactions, you ought to consider your own behavior. It isn't too late to turn this around, but you've gotten off to a bad start. Quale 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And no, I'm afraid I don't see the importance of this article having been established yet. Sorry. FrozenPurpleCube 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
