Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChessPlayerLev (talk | contribs) at 08:36, 5 November 2014 (→Questioning notability). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Chess
Shortcut: WP:CHESS
Navigation Menu
Project Page talk
talk
Assessment statistics talk
Review talk
Chess Portal talk

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Skip to: Bottom of page to add a new topic or see most recent new topics

Tabulation of wins in major recurring tournaments

Is it necessary for it to be added to each player's page? These tournaments will surely have been put into the player's main articles, therefore the tables added to them seem superfluous. I've removed all but the link to the tabulation page from the Sergey Karjakin page, but want to see what general opinion is. Not knocking the idea, which makes sense and can be retained as its own article, but rather the clutter on a players page which could cause confusion. Jkmaskell (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a huge fan of those tables, given that they often list tournaments a player could not have played in (because of his/her date of birth) and because there is no source showing whether the tournaments listed in those tables are "major". Toccata quarta (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There are inherent WP:OR and bias issues with determining which tournaments are major. The tables require research to aggregate results from multiple sources, and I am not confident that they do not have errors and omissions. There is also no easy way to verify them. The tabulations themselves aren't exactly synthesis of a novel conclusion, but there is an issue with WP:UNDUE since we shouldn't be inventing our own metrics to use to compare chess players. It would be somewhat similar if a baseball editor decided that baseball player articles should include a unique statistic that the editor computed because it is not found in any sources. Even if the numbers that went into the calculations were available in reliable sources and the calculation itself was simple, it would still not be permissible. Finally, I think the tables aren't very attractive and are a nuisance in the articles. I think that Jkmaskell is right and that noteworthy tournament wins should simply be reported in the body of the article. Quale (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Quale on everything. And these tables even add WC match wins to the running total?? Makes no sense at all. --SubSeven (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all previous comments. I have similar concerns about the table in Comparison of top chess players throughout history#World Champions by world title reigns. Cobblet (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this table either, for reasons discussed above. Designating some tournaments "major" is inherently subjective. Also not every tournament held as part of a recurring series is equally "major"; look at the history of the Tata Steel Chess Tournament and the Dortmund Sparkassen Chess Meeting and you'll see a number of second string GM's (and even a few non-GMs) among the winners. Also, supertournaments in earlier times tended to be one-off events, e.g. Bled 1931, Nottingham 1936, AVRO 1938 etc so this table also introduces a WP:RECENTISM bias. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've always been against these tabulated results. The 'Head-to-head against selected grandmasters' scores can also be very randomly, or subjectively selected, with the same problems for verifiability and accuracy. Does someone go around them all and update them every time a tournament is played? I think not. Check out Vladimir Kramnik, who now has nearly fifty head-to-head scores listed. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The head-to-head records are ridiculous to maintain and I think would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's just a pile of statistics with no rhyme or reason. --SubSeven (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to the work that a few editors have invested in creating the head-to-head and major tournament wins tabulations, and occasionally they even update some of them to try to keep them slightly current. For that reason I didn't have the heart to try to remove them from articles. I didn't realize there were this many editors who share the same concerns about them, and I agree with all the issues mentioned so far including the serious recentism problem noted by Max. Head-to-head records were discussed previously at WT:WikiProject Chess/Archive 29#Head to Head records.
One small point is that sometimes selected head-to-head records can be found directly in our sources, and in that case they may be appropriate to include. For example, Geller's significant plus records against Fischer and other WCs is well known and often reported. Another example is that head-to-head records between WC contestants are often reported before the matches, and those can go in the article on the match if they can be reliably sourced. Reliably sourced does not mean hand tabulated by querying a database such as chessgames.com and counting the results—the source should directly state the cumulative score and we should have a publication date for the claim. (Most database queries simply can't be dated reliably. How can I verify what a chessgames.com query returned five years ago, or even five days ago? This is significantly different than disappearance of online sources, as in theory they can be archived at a particular version.) Quale (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Korchnoi's excellent record against Tal is also noteworthy. Chessgames.com is very incomplete and games are added to it in a haphazard way. It is not really a reliable source for anything (I looked myself up there and discovered I was dead!), let alone players' head to head records. It's a convenient way to link to a chess game and a player profile, which is about all I use it for on wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everybody for their comments. Its pretty clear there is agreement to remove the tables from the players pages, retaining the overall table on the main page. Therefore I will proceed to edit them out. As for the other issues, we'll get to those in time. Jkmaskell (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ishi Press = spam?

Should citing Ishi Press reissues be treated as spam? For example the Paul Keres article includes several references to Ishi Press reissues of Keres' books. Ishi Press has reissued dozens of old chess books, but the connection to all round dodgy guy Sam Sloan is troubling. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that any occurrence that appears to be blatant advertising (e.g. singing the praises of the publisher, linking to their website, or replacing earlier edition references with Ishi Press equivalents) ought to be reverted. Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with the non-prolific citing of Ishi Press books. There will be many editors who only have access to the Ishi Press version, and so their numbered page citations will apply only to that specific volume - it is unlikely that page numbers would correspond with an earlier or original edition. Force majeure I think. Also, if you run a search on Ishi and/or Hardinge-Simpole (another of these resurrected title publishers) here on Wikipedia, you will see that there are already hundreds of instances of them being used in citations, so it would in any case be difficult to oppose this practice at this point. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox chess piece

Does this infobox have any use, anymore? It is up for deletion. —PC-XT+ 08:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring half points

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Use of frac template about whether we should use 4½/6 or 41⁄2/6 for scoring.  Stepho  talk  04:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

demo of showing games, playing them by a single keystroke from imported PGN

I attach the games of the World Chess Championship 2012. In the English wikipedia you had to write the games down, add diagrams and so on, on the Hebrew wikipedia there is a fantastic tool that was developped two years ago - have a look at the demo: HE:משתמש:Yoavd/chessdemo.

The tool was offered to you by the developper, a very dedicated wikipedian, but maybe you did not look at all the options.

I am interested in your view. You can scroll down all the games, then the fast games.

--Yoavd (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New, lousy article

Please take note of the following new, highly flawed article: List of highest tpr chess. It's full of unsourced statements, grammatical errors and violations of the [[MOS:]]. Besides that, it overlaps with some of the information found at List of world records in chess#Highest performance rating in a tournament, where some of it could be moved. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting stuff, but it seems to me like it is original synthesis. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not keen on this article. Cant see it going very far. It can be put into an existing article. Jkmaskell (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not bite the newbie. Frankly wikipedia treats new editors poorly, I hate the "curating" scheme with its drive by tagging. The guy obviously put some work into the article. Let it develop naturally, maybe at some point the material can be incorporated into another article. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like it is original work by that editor. He probably defined "TPR" and did the work. He only has contributed to that article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in tournament crosstables

Most of our older articles on tournaments have them, but they are problematic, particularly in tournaments involving citizens of a certain country between 1933 and 1945. The choice of flag in these cases is inconsistent, sometimes just plain wrong, and has the potential to give offence.

Sonja Graf was clearly not a Nazi, but she was a citizen of Nazi Germany. In the Buenos Aires 1939 chess tournament article she is given the flag of the Weimar Republic, which wasn't in use at the time.

This crosstable puts the dreaded swastika next to the name of Efim Bogolyubov, who may or may not have had Nazi sympathies.

This crosstable uses the flag of the German Empire for Lasker and Bogolyubov, which is just plain wrong any way you look at it.

Simplest solution - just stop using flags in tournament crosstables. For Germany between 1933-45, just write "Germany" (rather than "Nazi Germany" as in this crosstable) for the country. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The horizontal tricolour was co-official with the Nazi flag from 1933 to 1935, so its usage in the Zürich 1934 article is not wrong. The usage of flags in tables of sporting results is pervasive and every flag is potentially offensive to somebody – this is an area where I feel WP:NOTCENSORED is justified. Cobblet (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The usage of flags in tables of sporting results is pervasive and every flag is potentially offensive to somebody"... that's a bit disingenuous. Obviously the Nazi flag is a special case. Putting a Nazi flag next to someone's name kind of implies that the person is a Nazi, and would be particularly offensive in the case of Jewish citizens of Germany such as Lasker, Mieses, or outspoken anti-Nazis such as Sonja Graf. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not disingenuous. Putting the flag of the Third Reich next to someone's name does not make them a Nazi any more than putting the flag of the Soviet Union next to the names of Korchnoi, Alburt or Bohatyrchuk makes them Communists. Putting a Turkish flag next to Mikhail Gurevich's name does not make him a Muslim or a denier of the Armenian genocide. But see MOS:SPORTFLAGS as I believe it may provide the guideline you're looking for. Cobblet (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne, please don't waste your time and our time complaining (I didn't intend to sound so hostile) that the flag is "offensive" to some people. That argument didn't work in the Images of Muhammad dispute. It didn't work regarding inclusion of an explicit video in the ejaculation article. It's not going to work here. If the flag is being used in a historically accurate manner then complaining that the flag offends some people isn't going to fly work.
I was going to raise the matter of MOS:SPORTFLAGS, but Cobblet beat me to it. Individual nationality flags do not belong in these tables. The only time the flags are appropriate is when competitors are officially representing a nation, such as in the Olympics. Trying to target this specific "offensive" flag icon isn't going to fly, but I would fully support a move to clean all the flags out of WikiProject_Chess tables. If WikiProject_Chess wants to take this up it should start at Top importance articles then High importance articles, with a general Project guideline for new tables and eventual cleanup of lower-importance old tables. Alsee (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any need to start tossing out things like "wasting our time". It is a reasonable concern, raised in a reasonable manner, and I think it deserves a slightly calmer response. Months ago other people had expressed concern about the probity of identifying Lasker with the hammer and sickle (he was for a time a Soviet citizen), so this is not a new complaint. I'm not sure what MOS:SPORTFLAGS indicates in this case. In modern times these aren't really individual nationalities, but national federations. Today all competitors in FIDE tournaments are registered with national federations, and a player's federation and his or her citizenship are not necessarily related. At some tournaments flags are present at the boards during play. Chess crosstables almost always include the player federation, except perhaps in cases such as national championships when all players will be from the same country. Maybe Max's suggestion would be a satisfactory answer: include the player federations in crosstables but use flags only for the world championship and national team tournaments and matches, including the Olympiads. To try to erase politics from some chess tournaments would be to attempt to rewrite history. For example, during WW II Germany arranged several tournaments expressly for Nazi propaganda, including Munich 1941 chess tournament, Salzburg 1942 chess tournament, and most notoriously Munich 1942. Quale (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, I see my "wasting time" comment came across as very hostile. I was trying to calmly but firmly explain it wasn't going to work, I was trying to direct things in a more viable direction. I like getting rid of junk flags in tables. It cuts down on nationalistic scorekeeping and conflict, when the focus should be on the individual's achievement. Alsee (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to note that the Hebrew wikipedia article on the unofficial 1936 Chess Olympiad in Munich avoids using the swastika, instead using the modern German flag (similar to that of the Weimar Republic). In this instance, it is historically inaccurate, since the German team were explicitly representing Nazi Germany. Obviously they're very touchy about "that flag" in Israel, so maybe we should be sensitive about its use on the English wikipedia too. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Hebrew wikipedia can choose to do what it likes, but that has no effect here. Pretending that those weren't Nazi events doesn't make it so, any more than you can try to erase Nazism from the story of the 1936 Summer Olympics. Using the modern German flag for events organized for Nazi propaganda here is an absolute non-starter. Quale (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't suggesting using the modern German flag, just noting the high degree of sensitivity towards use of the Nazi flag. WP:NOTCENSORED says (paraphrasing) it's ok to include potentially offensive material (e.g. some rock album covers) if it adds value to the article. Flags in chess tournament crosstables don't really do that, the only possible exception being olympiads. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that not every German citizen during that period was a Nazi or a Nazi supporter. However, the correct flag to represent thoser people is the German flag from that time - and I would even support putting it on names of any Righteous Among the Nations who happened to represent Germany during that time. I would make an exception for BLPs who make an explicit request otherwise, but that isn't the case with Nazi Germany. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

NOT CENSORED is irrelevant. The images of Mohammed were properly considered important to understanding the subject, not mere decorations. Similar for ejaculation, or the album, for both of which they were considered not just important, but essential. the flags used here are decorations. They do not elucidate the subject: the words do perfectly well without them. 17:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
NOT CENSORED is entirely relevant if someone tries to target specific flags on the grounds that they consider them offensive. Where flags do exist they need to be accurate. But as I said it is entirely appropriate to engage in a general cleanup of tables that shouldn't have flags at all. Alsee (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Alsee said. Quale (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So to summarise... we have several people here (including an Israeli) who say that the correct flag for Germany 1935-45 is the Nazi flag, and that putting it alongside a person doesn't necessarily mean they are a Nazi. On the other hand, flags don't add any real information to an article and are primarily aesthetic, and can therefore be dispensed with. In the case of individual tournaments where players are really representing themselves rather than their countries I think we have consensus that flags can be removed. What about Olympiads? MaxBrowne (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on Chess

Anyone want to take a stab at this? I'm no chess expert. Cannolis (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Florin Șerban (chess player)

Dear chess experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable player, and should the page be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely to be updated that often and thats about all I can find. CC players are difficult unless getting cross promotion to OTB chess and by their nature are pretty specialised so hard to prove notability. Jkmaskell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking this out, Jkmaskell. I presume from your comments that your opinion is that this draft should be let go. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems okay to me. He appears to have the CC grandmaster title and as we generally allow any OTB grandmaster to have an article, this could be seen as equivalent in stature. We might also consider his qualification for the WC Finals as evidence that he is among the best of CC grandmasters. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bar for notability should probably be higher for CC players. Even among chess players, CC specialists are generally not very well known. On its own, the ICCF Grandmaster title probably isn't enough to establish notability. MaxBrowne (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Salmon edits

It will be clear to regular editors that the George Salmon page is often edited by unregistered users (probably the same person actually) as a joke. It was funny the first time but this is happening a lot and its a pain to undo each time. Would somebody please semi-protect this page to nip this in the bud. Jkmaskell (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reported it at WP:AIV. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning notability

Does Ayah Moaataz meet notability for chess players? If not, the article need to be AfD-ed. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Born in 1997, won the Egyptian Women's Chess Championship with 8.5/9 back in February, this being reported on the FIDE website. She was in the Women's Olympiad team in Tromso this year. I would retain it. Jkmaskell (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we don't have a page for the Egyptian Chess Championship. I searched for information about the Egyptian championship several years ago and came up empty. Looking today I also found nothing. It may be that Arabic sources are required, but I'm not equipped to make use of them. Quale (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, she does not meet notability criteria, considering she is rated only 2009 Elo, and 1423rd in the world among active women. (FIDE Master is 2300+ and International Master (IM) is 2400+, neither of which is considered notable enough by itself for inclusion in Wikipedia, either) Ditto for the WIM title. (Frankly, even WGM, which is ranked below IM, should be borderline) Since she doesn't have any other achievements, this should be deleted. Since it's been a long time since I regularly contributed and I keep screwing up the protocol, does anyone else want to start the AfD? Thanks. :) ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly I don't see anything in any notability criteria about chess rating or world ranking. The Egyptian women's chess champion is sufficient for notability (if reliable sources can be found, as always). Her page is also linked from Chess at the 2011 Pan Arab Games (she was first board on the bronze medal winning team) and Women's World Chess Championship 2014, and it does not improve the encyclopedia to remove pages to create red links. One of the ways to improve the encyclopedia is to build the web, and building the web requires making the meaningful links work, not destroying them. I think every qualifier for the women's chess championship should have a page, regardless of your opinion of their ability. There will very naturally be few pages on Egyptian chess players here on EnWiki since Egypt is not a world chess power, but currently there are only three (Category:Egyptian chess players), with only one woman. Working to make that number drop to two men and no women is not something I would be proud to do. Quale (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to what source is an Egyptian women's chess champion notable enough? From what I'm aware, the usual standard is Grandmaster for men and at least Women's Grandmaster for women (a title considered lower than International Master). We have deleted players ten times more notable, prominent, and stronger in the chess world than this person. Actually, you're quite wrong about Egypt; they're ranked the 48th country in the world and they have four 2500+ rated GMs (at least two of which don't appear on Wikipedia at all). I'm not sure what the last few lines mean; are you suggesting a gender quota be used for the purposes of notability? If you're concerned with Egypt's representation, feel free to start pages about Egypt's grandmasters and their countless International Masters and multi-time overall Egyptian champions. The player in question isn't even close to the top 100 active players in Egypt, by the way. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't nominate it myself because I don't like destroying other people's work... but if someone nominates it I won't oppose deletion. Her CV is rather unimpressive. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Quale on this one. For all of my time here, we have consistently looked at a wide spectrum of distinctions when gauging notability. So ideally a GM/WGM, but if not, we would take into account other worthy achievements, like published writer, national champion, successful coach, Olympiad team member etc. There are numerous examples of where this has been done and accordingly, a national champion with the WIM title, playing board one for her country and competing in the World Championship, must surely qualify for an article. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is "national champion" articulated as a meaningful distinction? It should depend on the country, no? (By the way, she got the WIM title BECAUSE she was a national champion. Her rating is way, way too low to qualify otherwise. And a WIM title by itself is nowhere near notable enough) For instance, we don't automatically have articles about the best basketball player in Mongolia, do we? Also, we're missing articles on the overwhelming majority of junior WORLD champions of either gender, several of Egypt's GMs, and countless Egyptian national overall champions, which no one is particularly concerned about. (And actually, I would agree that most of them aren't very important, but still many times moreso than this person) However, a meaningless national champion ranked 1423rd in the world among active women is notable?! (And even that's overly generous, considering many strong female players have national federation ratings, but not FIDE ones, due to the expense) I can't think of a single reason why this person deserves an article. You might consider this is a joke, but thinking about it, I think I have at least as much notability in chess as her. (Not a national champion, but higher rating and certain coaching/writing accomplishments) That's sad. Every chess person mentioned here should have a hundred times my notability.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think we can at least agree that we have fundamentally opposed viewpoints. I am attaching some semblance of importance to someone who is outstanding in their own small field, whereas you seem to be very focused on rating and ranking. Like Quale, I don't see how your approach benefits an encyclopedia that is surely large enough to embrace a meaningful (and not token) appreciation of chess from across the world. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability criteria for chess biographies has been discussed several times here in project talk, and from those discussions and this one I think it's safe to say that we don't have a general agreement for a usual standard of notability. I can say that I am one of the most inclusive (maybe even the most inclusive), and that others have suggested that only GMs should be included. Others have pointed out that there are a lot of GMs today and many of them aren't very notable, so maybe we should only include the highest ranked players, maybe the top 200. One of the best suggestions was that Wikipedia should only have 100 chess bios in total. I think that was offered in complete seriousness, although at the time that would have required deleting more than a thousand pages.
Although I agree that Wikipedia is missing bios for many chess players who are more important than the Egyptian women's champion, that fact is completely irrelevant and has no weight in this discussion at all. If Wikipedia articles were a finite resource that we needed to conserve, then you might argue we need those more important bios instead of this one. But they have nothing to do with each other at all. Deleting this page would not help in any way to create the missing bios. I believe that not only is there plenty of room in Wikipedia for a bio page for every player who qualified for the Women's World Chess Championship 2014, but that Wikipedia would be better if it had all those bios. I know that not everyone agrees, but I'm afraid I really don't understand why anyone thinks deleting this page would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It seems we are unlikely to agree on that point, but that happens sometimes. Quale (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia has unlimited space" is a reasonable position, sure. However, I simply recall a number of pages we have deleted (some of which I recall you and Brittle Heaven agreeing with) of chess personalities far more notable than this one. So if nothing else, it would definitely help to have clearer criteria in this area. Should we simply open up the floodgates to every achievement, no matter how minor? I'm okay with that if it's applied consistently. On a slightly related note, the FIDE process for the Women's knockout "World Championships" is a joke and a disgrace, and shouldn't be considered significant. How can it, when of the 65-odd people invited they include those not even ranked among the top 2,000 active female players? (Yes, there are even women rated significantly lower than the Egyptian representatives) That would be like the best basketball player from Mongolia being participated to a basketball championship ahead of a starter in the NBA.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess&oldid=632531873"