Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

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

Notability guidelines

Could someone please point me to the notability guidelines? I want to know if Nino Maisuradze is notable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability of chess players can be quite a complex subject that has been discussed in great detail here over the years. Ultimately, everyone's Wikipedia notability hinges on the concept of 'significant coverage in reputable sources'. We do however have various 'rules of thumb' that might give us a clue; FIDE's most prestigious titles (like GM, WGM), major successes like representing the national side, or winning the national championship are three such indicators that would strongly suggest notability. I would say therefore, that Nino Maisuradze will be comfortably notable. It is not difficult to imagine that a scan of the leading international chess magazines for example, would turn up numerous mentions of her many achievements. Of course the article is currently not adequately sourced, and is written in very poor English, but these are all things that can be easily rectified. I hope that helps. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Brittle heaven. Thank you kindly for the thoughtful and valuable feedback. It is also good news for the article.

Maybe some sort of essay would be helpful as a notability guideline. It could cite common outcomes of chess player-related AfDs.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Twice French Women's champion is probably just enough to establish notability, but it's close. Marie Sebag and Sophie Milliet are much stronger, and a peak rating of 2349 isn't a big deal. Articles about stronger players (i.e. IM's) have been deleted in the past. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Twice is unnecessary, since one-time French Women's champion is sufficient for notability. But the ultimate determiner is WP:GNG, in other words whether or not there are good sources. Quale (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there any hope for an essay? There is even one for cycling. How about an entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes? See User:Anna Frodesiak/White sandbox. Can that possibly go anywhere? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have Tim Krabbe's "Chess Curiosities"?

It's a rare and sought after book which changes hands for $200+ on the second hand market. I've read it but don't have my own copy. I distinctly remember the Petrovic study that I gave in the Retrograde analysis article, and I want to cite the book as a source. I don't know which page the Petrovic study appears in, but I think it's in the chapter on castling. Can anyone help me with the cite? MaxBrowne (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"Benko's Opening"

I don't believe this name is standard for 1.g3. Benko hardly invented the move (it was played by e.g. Reti) and is usually just called the King's Fianchetto Opening. Furthermore, 1.g3 has little independent significance and is highly transpositional in nature with little in the way of concrete lines - both players usually just do their own thing for the first several moves until their respective set-ups begin to take shape. So the attempts to organize the article by Black's reply, White's reply, Black's reply doesn't really work. Also the links to the wikibook on chess openings are useless. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a standard name for it at all? How common is it actually to call it the King's Fianchetto opening, as opposed to simply "1.g3"? I'm not going to revert your move since I don't see a strong argument either way (and we seem to have an aversion to using algebraic notation to name openings even though that is frequently how chess players refer to openings - not complaining, just pointing it out), but it would be nice to have a couple of sources for the new name (and the alternatives, for that matter). Cobblet (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We have a clear preference from the Oxford Companion to Chess anyway. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's better than nothing. Then again, I wonder how many people outside of our little circle on Wikipedia have even seen a copy of the Oxford Companion, let alone use one, and I wonder whether it's an accurate reflection of popular usage at all. Cobblet (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I buy the "popular usage" argument, most players probably just call it "g3", and if you said "Benko Opening" to someone the first thing to come to mind would probably be the Benko Gambit (another name he "stole"). "Popular usage" also includes habitual mispronunciations of fianchetto, Pirc, Alekhine etc. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying we should change it back: I just question whether it's appropriate to speak of any standard name for 1.g3 at all other than, well, 1.g3. I guess King's Fianchetto is as good as any – very reminiscent of the old, somewhat stilted British names for certain openings, "Queen's Pawn Counter Gambit", "Centre Counter Defence" and the like. Not names I've heard people use, but I've never played chess in the UK. (By the way, even Alekhine mispronounced Alekhine.) Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to argue against the move, but after consideration I decided I didn't have a very compelling argument. "King's Fianchetto" is rather dry and uninteresting, but that alone isn't a reason to use Benko's name instead. Quale (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest chess Tournament Performance Ratings

FYI. postdlf (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Swindle (chess)

A minor matter: could someone smarter than I please reposition the photo of Larry Christiansen that is at Swindle_(chess)#Practical_considerations so there isn't the blank space between it and the diagram on the left? Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the Troitzky line article.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

A. Black to play and draw.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

B2. Black to play and draw.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

C. White to play and win.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

C'. Draw.

I'm intending to make changes to the Troitzky line article.

I think the changes are necessary on the grounds of accuracy and clarity.

For background see the discussions Draws on and behind the Troitsky line and Troitsky line.

The current statement of the Troitzky line rule is

For the position with White to move, Troitsky established that if a black pawn is securely blockaded (by one of the white knights) on a square no further forward than the line a4–b6–c5–d4–e4–f5–g6–h4, then White can win the resulting endgame (and similarly in reverse for Black), no matter where the other pieces are placed.

— Troitzky line

(I added the word "securely" myself, because I assumed from the discussion in Draws on and behind the Troitsky line, that Bubba73 had intended the addition, but omitted it by oversight.)

The drawn position C' shown is a clear exception to the statement following the words, "For the position with White to move, Troitsky established that", rendering the complete statement incorrect.

Note that because of the phrase, "with White to move", positions A and B2 must be taken after Black's first move to count as candidate exceptions. I think the phrase is redundant and would like to find a source that doesn't include it.

The statement of the Troitzky line rule is also unclear, because the phrase "securely blockaded" is not defined.

I have been soliciting the views of chess players on whether the current wording is adequate to cover various drawn positions. The response so far is unanimously that the wording needs to be changed to cover each of the positions, except that Bubba73, so far as I understand, would regard the wording as OK in respect of at least position A shown, possibly also position B2.

The reason for Bubba73's viewpoint hinges on the meaning of the phrase "securely blockaded". I have discovered that different people have different opinions on this.

I think in view of the ambiguity the phrase needs further definition. The form of such a definition would also determine if exceptions of the type I show here run to millions or just thousands.

The Troitzky line rule is given without any attribution. I think it needs to be a cited reference. Further explanation or definition of the phrase "securely blockaded", should this occur in the citation, needs to be taken from the same source, otherwise, in view of the ambiguity, it could express something different from what the author intended.

I think the best source would be from the originator of the rule. (See subsequent questions.)

If the cited source doesn't define the phrase "securely blockaded" then I think some comment needs to be included about what the likely intention was. So far I have come across five views of what the term means:

(1) The knight stands on the square immediately in front of the pawn and is not en prise.

(2) The knight stands on the square immediately in front of the pawn and is directly defended by another white piece.

(3) The knight stands on the square immediately in front of the pawn and either the black king can be prevented from attacking the blockading knight or the knight can be directly defended if it is attacked, without, in the process, allowing the black king to capture the remaining knight or fork both knights in such a way that one can be captured on the subsequent move.

(4) Bubba73's meaning, which is, I believe, strictly between (3) and, "The knight stands on the square immediately in front of the pawn and all lines of play for black lead to a loss". (Bubba73 has dropped out of the conversation and referred me here, so my apologies to Bubba73 if this is a misrepresentation.)

(5) The knight stands on a square forward of the pawn on the same file, the square behind the knight being understood as the point at which the pawn is blockaded, and either the black king can be prevented from attacking the blockading knight or the knight can be directly defended if it is attacked, without, in the process, allowing the black king to capture the remaining knight or fork both knights in such a way that one can be captured on the subsequent move.

The last of these was my own understanding until I started the discussion. I now find that it is incorrect in terms of standard chess terminology. I've included it because I suspect this was what Troitsky intended.

I would say that (1) cannot be the intended meaning in this case because there are then very many obvious exceptions.

I think (2) can also be discounted, because White would often not want to directly defend the blockading knight. For example C is won for White, but he draws if he directly defends the blockading knight.

I would expect (3) to be the majority understanding among readers without any further explanation in the text. With this definition all the drawn positions shown here would be exceptions.

Meaning (4) with appropriate formulation could possibly encompass positions A and B2, but a formulation would be difficult, and no reasonable formulation could encompass C', so is probably not worth while. Some exceptions would have to be noted in any case.

Meaning (5) would possibly be best if there were any reference for it. (I've previously understood "blocked" and "blockaded" in an English sense, i.e. if you can't immediately move where you want to go because there's something in the way, you're blocked, whereas if there's a blockade at the end of your cul-de-sac, you're blockaded even if you live at the other end of the cul-de-sac. Standard chess usage, if I now understand correctly, makes no distinction in the case of individual pawns and each implies there is a piece immediately in front of the pawn.)

I'm lacking sources, so I'm hoping someone can assist. At the moment I have only (Averbakh & Chekhover 1977) relating to the two knights v pawn ending and it doesn't mention the Troitsky line. All the related internet references I can find are either verbatim copies of the Wikipaedia article (in the form prior to the recent changes) or links back to it. I've ordered (Troitzky 1937) but it could be a month before it arrives.

In the meantime, it would be useful if anyone could answer any of the following questions.

(a) Did Troitzky propound the Troitzky line rule, or was this someone else based on Troitzky's analysis.

(b) If the answer to (a) is "someone else", who, and is there an available reference?

(c) If the answer to (a) is yes, is the rule to be found in (Troitzky 1937)? If not, where?

(d) Does anyone know of a source for the Troitzky line rule that implicitly or explicitly uses meaning (5) of the term "securely blockaded"?

(e) Can anyone provide a citation and the corresponding text for the Troitzky line rule? I believe, from what Bubba73 says that both (Fine 1941) and (Müller & Lamprecht 2001) should contain such. (A reference authored by Troitzky would be preferred.)

(f) Assuming the answer to (e) is yes, is there a definition or succinct explanation of "securely blockaded" or whatever equivalent is used? Can this text also be posted, please, if so?

(g) If I can find no source with a definition/explanation of "securely blockaded", which of (1)-(5) do you think should be the suggested meaning inserted in the article, or should it be something different from all of these?

I will post a draft when I have more information.

• Averbakh, Yuri; Chekhover, Vitaly (1977), Knight Endings, Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-0552-X
• Fine, Reuben; Benko, Pal (2003), Basic Chess Endings (1941) (2nd ed.), McKay, ISBN 0-8129-3493-8
• Müller, Karsten; Lamprecht, Frank (2001), Fundamental Chess Endings, Gambit Publications, ISBN 1-901983-53-6
• Troitzky, Alexey (2006), Collection of Chess Studies (1937), Ishi Press, ISBN 0-923891-10-2 The last part (pages 197–257) is a supplement containing Troitzky's analysis of two knights versus pawns.

Martin Rattigan (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The Russian Endgame Handbook, by Rabinovich, page 88, quotes Troitzky "... on any placement of the black king, White undoubtedly wins only against black pawns standing on a4, b6, c5, d4, e4, f5, g6, h4 and above". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that's certainly interesting!

The snippet would no doubt be preceded in the original by some specification of the positions of the white pieces (i.e. a blockade in some sense) but the reference to "... black pawns standing on ..." seems to kill off my idea that Troitsky may have been intending something corresponding to definition (5) above, otherwise he would have said "... black pawns stopped on ..." or some such phrase.

Most interesting though is the word "only". I think he is expressing a necessary, not a sufficient condition that White undoubtedly wins. That is, he is saying that White does not undoubtedly win if the pawns are past the Troitzky line, not that White does undoubtedly win if the pawns are on or behind the Troitzky line. (Undoubtedly here meaning, presumably, for any position of the black king.)

welcome back by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.32.135 (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think he is stating a sufficient condition, because (1) he gives positions of the pawn past the line where White may or may not win, and (2) he says that White undoubtedly wins if the black pawn is on or behind the line. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He seems to me to be saying that there are always positions of the Black king where White doesn't necessarily win if the pawn is past the line (of the kind you mention under (1)).

But as for (2), he doesn't say (according to your quote) "White undoubtedly wins if the black pawn is on or behind the line", he says "White undoubtedly wins only against black pawns standing on a4, b6, c5, d4, e4, f5, g6, h4 and above", i.e., "White undoubtedly wins only if the black pawn is on or behind the line", the critical addition being the word "only".

There is a difference in meaning between "if" and "only if".

I think he leaves open the situation on or behind the line.

80.218.32.135 (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, if I have understood the quote correctly, none of the positions I gave would be exceptions to what it states. In fact I don't believe there would be any exceptions.

No, he is saying that White always wins if the black pawn is on or behind the line. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Is he? I still don't see it. If "always" is taken as a synonym of "undoubtedly", then the quote would be, "White always wins only if the black pawn is on or behind the line", not, "White always wins if the black pawn is on or behind the line", as you have just stated it. Martin Rattigan (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you think undoubtedly means?? (Realize that this is a translation from Russian.)Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, for any position of the black king, but I would be more sure if the snippet were complete. Does Rabinovich give anything preceding the snippet? As for the translation, who knows? Martin Rattigan (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Having had some sleep meantime, I see that I have probably completely misunderstood your previous response. In fact your response simply means exactly what it says; what do I think is the intended meaning of the word translated as "undoubtedly". My response probably appeared a little strange. No sane translator would render "for any position of the black king" as "undoubtedly". If you understand the original meaning as "always" I would concur. I wasn't questioning this substitution in my previous comment.

My point was about the logical form of the statement Rabinovitch attributes to Troitzky. This statement is $({\mathcal {A}}$ only if ${\mathcal {B}})$ where ${\mathcal {A}}$ is "White undoubtedly(always) wins" and ${\mathcal {B}}$ is "the black pawn is on or behind the Troitsky line". (My first question here would be, "Do you agree so far?.) You have rendered this in your last few comments as $({\mathcal {A}}$ if ${\mathcal {B}})$, i.e. "White undoubtedly(always) wins if the black pawn is on or behind the Troitzky line". The first would be formalized as $(\neg {\mathcal {B}}\Rightarrow \neg {\mathcal {A}})$ whereas the second would be formalized as $({\mathcal {B}}\Rightarrow {\mathcal {A}})$ and these are not logically equivalent.

The whole paragraph is: "Troitzky showed that 'on any placement of the black king, White undoubtedly wins only against black pawns standing on a4, b6, c5, d4, e4, f5, g6, h4 and above (26 cases)'. Along with this, he demonstrated a great number of losing positions with further-advanced pawns; however, in the vast majority of such positions the win is forced only with very complicated maneuverings, the explanation of which would take up space in this manual." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine and Benko, page 99, say "White wins if the pawn cannot cross the line." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Do they have an actual statement of the Troitzky line rule? I.e. a statement that could be used as a citation. Martin Rattigan (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Muller and Lamprecht. Fundamental Chess Endings, pp. 19-20, "The Russian theoretician Triotsky made a detailed study of this endgame and discovered the following rule: If the pawn is securely blockaded no further down than the line, then Black loses, no matter where the kings are. If the pawn has advanced beyond the line, there is usually a drawing and a losing zone for the defending king, which were also analyzed by Triotsky." (emphasis in the original) John Nunn did a computer analysis and found Triotsky's analysis to be "surprisingly accurate". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)