326:
direct me there I'd gladly nominate it for deletion. Anyway, a subjective list is one thing, a subjective template, placed in dozens of articles, goes a lot further than that. Paul Morphy was a very important player, no doubt, but for almost all of the others we can have an endless discussion. The standards for inclusion are not only subjective, but also arbitrary: Menchik and Polgar are there as women, Nimzowitsch because of his contribution to the theory of chess strategy rather than his results, Larsen and
Reshevsky would not be featured so prominently had they been Soviet players. And where is Pillsbury? Maroczy? Maia Chiburdanidze? It will always be random.
848:
355:
same degree. Yes, we can argue whether or not we include a section "undisputed world champions" in the template, but once we do include them, there is a verifiable standard to decide who these world champions are. Excluding
Petrosian would be simply wrong, not a matter of taste. In the players section, however, such a standard is lacking and every name is a subjective decision. I also disagree that this part of the template is helpful to readers; just putting an arbitrary list there, without a reason why they are there, is not giving them information of very high quality. On the contrary.
339:, and I wish you success in deleting it as I think that it is biased in many regards. - Regarding the chess template: You are of course true that the list of players is arbitrary and subjective to some degree. What you do not see is that even the rest of the template is also arbitrary and subjective - why for example only "undisputed" OTB champions and not also the disputed? The unofficial? Correspondence chess champions? And you do not realize that also all other similar templates are arbitrary and subjective about to the same degree. Take for example the
197:
today, and moreover I included the two most dominant female players of history, Menchik and J.Polgár. BTW most lists are in some sense "subjective", even the champions list in the same template - why just "undispusted, unrestricted, official"? We must live with the unavoidable subjectivity somehow, I guess. The reason for the template is to provide the reader with an easy access to the most interesting chess articles, nothing more and nothng less, so I do not see a need for strong definitions and pure objectivity here. --
343:. Why is there pétanque and not much more important team chess, which has its own olympiades? Et cetera. So I thing that you must either delete all similar templates (I would be against it as they help to readers) or try to have them as relevant as possible knowing that human beings are not capable of perfection (which is what I am trying to do). - If you think that Larsen should be removed and Pillsbury added, OK, let us talk about Larsen and Pillsbury, but this does not mean that we should delete the whole category.--
22:
800:
71:
53:
276:(1) agree; (2) I think that "Chess" is better because of clarity and brevity; (3) I agree that Reshevsky is a bit subjective, but I added him because he was really in the top five in the unhappy years around WW2, and because this is an English Knowledge, so I preferred English speaking players over the others in cases of doubt. But I agree that he can be removed if other editors think so.--
81:
397:. And when people speak of the "Undisputed World Champion" you and I both know exactly what they mean, and it's not a "Women's World Chess Champion" (Susan Polgar) or a "World Correspondence Chess Champion" (Tunc Hamarat). The simple fact remains: a navigational tool should not be used to introduce a highly subjective selection of "important" players.
365:
same time I know that there are cases without this possibility. - BTW to be helpful to readers does not always mean to give them an information; these templates exists because we wish to give them a navigation tool. This is why templates are not in the main namespace and are not the part of encyclopedia proper, just like WP:COREBIO (see
827:
There are more than 1000 different Chess variants and no mention of their existence, apart from mentionning bughouse chess, and chess boxing. Bughouse is a well known chess variant, but chess boxing is not a widely played chess variant (it's just spectacular and unique by associating boxing to chess,
406:
Traps fall also under
Openings, just like Sicilian. And Women/Correspondence champs are also undisputed. - I think that this discussion is blocked, because I do not believe in absolute "objectivity" and you do not believe that subjectivity can be useful; so if you insist on the change, you should try
325:
On the contrary, we mustn't live with it. NPOV policy is perfectly clear. I know there are some lists left (mostly dating from pre-category times) about major Xs and important Ys, but those should go too. I don't know what "list of persons with historical importance" you are talking about, but if you
221:
OK. Obviously some thinking and work is going into this template, something to be encouraged. But in this particular case (the chess template), personally I'm not convinced. I think it's too open to random edits which aren't thought through. Still, I'll let you and others work on it, and hopefully it
196:
On the other side, the chessplayers category is too crowded to be easily used. It may be a bit subjective, but I think that in most cases the reasons are clear: These players are noted in many anthologies, books about history of chess etc., and they cover the timeline of chess since Middle Ages till
354:
WP:COREBIO is not in the main namespace (i.e. not part of the encyclopedia proper), so I don't think that comparison is to the point (and I'm not going to send it to AfD!). More importantly, it is simply not true that the rest of the template is "also arbitrary and subjective" - at least not to the
364:
But what about including Susan Polgar? Or Tunc
Hamarat? They were also undisputed chess world champions. And where is your "verifiable standard" in the other sections? Why we have "Traps" and not "Sicilian Game" in the first section? I love to be exact where it is possible to be exact, but at the
265:
I quite like it, but would suggest that it (1) be better spaced from the text above and below (2) be differently titled - eg. 'Overview' or 'Summary' - maybe prefaced by the word 'Chess'. As it stands, I think it conflicts with the main page title (3) not include 'Reshevsky'. Of course, I realise
165:
In fact, it should be "Important leading players who were not undisputed unrestricted OTB world champions". But this title is too long for a template, so the title is "Players", but only the leading, often cited masters can be listed here. I think that this can be useful, because these important
289:
The "players" section should absolutely go, in my opinion. It's not a bad list (though I'd personally get rid of
Reshevsky and Larsen), but simply giving a bunch of names without a criterion for inclusion will only cause confusion: why them? "Important leading players who were not undisputed
307:
I disagree. There are players which belongs there without doubt (e.g. Paul Morphy - in his time there was no WCh title, but nobody doubts that he was the most powerful player of his time) and in the borderline cases, we can perhaps discuss or make a strawpoll. Many lists of people are a bit
521:
I did my bit of improvement to the template and updated it. A goal in updating template was to improve discoverability, so I have tried to incorporate many articles, so there could be more important terms, which are part of an article present in template, but are not mentioned separately.
380:
You're grasping at straws now. No, the template itself is not in the main namespace; but the articles in which the template is used certainly are (if the template was unused I wouldn't bother with this discussion). The first section doesn't specifically mention the
266:
that this is where it gets highly subjective, but I would have put
Reshevsky on a similar plateau to the likes of Geller and Polugaevsky. Would Tartakower and/or Eliskases not merit a place here? What do others think? - I'm certainly happy to be outvoted
451:. Whether you include a notable players section or not is not such a life or death thing (just leave out Reshevsky please) - but a compromise that avoids the whole 'favourites' debate would just be to link a heading 'Players' to
717:
That makes sense. Good find by the way. The template is better for it. The article has existed since 2006 and I guess nobody has ever run across it while at the same time knowing to add it to the template. Nice work.
518:
I think we have many chess articles, but the current chess template is quite basic. We could expand it to include many articles on chess, which would greatly discoverability and ease of navigation.
458:
At the risk of sparking even more controversy, how about links to 'Topics', 'Games' 'Quotes' etc. Shouldn't the template in effect replace the "See Also" section of the main page as part of its
247:
Rocksong, you should also note that if you click on the players portion of the
Template you bring up the players category from Knowledge. Hopefully, that will help quell your concerns.
746:
832:
546:
422:
If you want to discuss it there, go ahead. I will now change the template, as you have not even made an attempt to show how your list of personal favourites is
775:
Hi. The template seems fine, and dividing it would remove the 'Chess openings' links from the view of template readers on pages besides the openings articles.
541:
Currently the template abbreviates "versus" to "Vs" with a capital V. This is non-standard; in fact I have not seen it done anywhere else. Should be changed.
790:
267:
442:
935:
840:
466:
917:
280:
434:
415:
401:
373:
359:
347:
330:
312:
294:
905:
Also, for variations of openings, why are several variants of the
Sicilian included but this is not done for other common openings such as the
447:
I would just say that I prefer the new slimmed down format of the template. Generally, I think it's looking useful, without being too bulky or
867:
737:
226:
201:
183:
170:
769:
976:
784:
727:
712:
687:
659:
480:
section to the template because chess tournaments are such a big part of chess. Please refute, support, or discuss my change. Thanks,
644:
508:
615:
251:
609:
573:
270:
471:
531:
1017:
854:
it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a
831:
Other Chess variants that are worth to be mentioned: Capablanca Chess, Chess 960, Crazy House (a 2 player
Bughouse game) etc.
1022:
513:
159:
952:'s status as a joke opening, should it not be classed with irregular openings rather than with the mainline 1.e4 openings?
878:
What is the notability level for being included in the opening's section. Is there any reason common opening's such as the
1027:
150:
763:
708:
683:
640:
542:
308:
subjective here - look for example at the list of persons with historical importance "A"; but we must live with it.--
408:
103:
961:
931:
899:
423:
145:
290:
unrestricted OTB world champions" doesn't help either - "important" is just too subjective and unverifiable.
1003:
550:
179:
Then have a chessplayers category. Just who to include on a limited-size template is extremely subjective.
33:
599:
836:
625:
617:
94:
58:
927:
855:
569:
999:
957:
913:
895:
462:? In some respects, it's also an alternative to the Portal and that's not such a bad idea either!.
155:
Is this section really useful? There are hundreds of chess players on
Knowledge, perhaps thousands.
102:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
806:
427:
988:
757:
704:
679:
636:
412:
370:
344:
309:
277:
198:
167:
452:
39:
995:
953:
909:
891:
863:
780:
723:
655:
136:
8:
586:
579:
527:
463:
407:
to involve more editors to discuss it. I suggest you to open a discussion on the page of
366:
340:
987:
The Maroczy Bind is a pawn structure rather than an opening, regularly occuring in the
973:
883:
943:
753:
697:
672:
629:
481:
431:
398:
356:
336:
327:
291:
992:
949:
873:
477:
382:
982:
859:
776:
719:
666:
651:
606:
595:
887:
565:
536:
523:
1011:
968:
248:
223:
180:
156:
142:
390:
86:
879:
141:
Is there anything else people think should be included on this template?
591:
742:
This template seems a bit over-crowded. Do people support a separate
906:
557:
828:
and it's in general just a boxing skill game than a chess game).
99:
70:
52:
794:
890:
included and other obscure opening's or gambits are not?
80:
98:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
76:
886:are not included? Why are some rare openings like
1009:
791:Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020
752:template that includes all the variations?
166:players are often interesting for readers.--
443:Overall impression and aims of the template
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
1010:
605:Done, good catch. Moved to 'Tactics'.
738:Separate template for chess openings?
556:Yes, I thought that was strange too.
92:This template is within the scope of
21:
19:
15:
671:Where is the best place to add it?
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
14:
1039:
846:
798:
590:should be filed under Endgames.
409:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Chess
79:
69:
51:
20:
926:You can add some if you want.
1:
1018:Template-Class chess articles
785:19:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
770:18:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
514:Improvement to Chess Template
281:14:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
271:13:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
252:12:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
227:11:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
202:11:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
184:11:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
171:08:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
160:00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
146:18:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
106:and see a list of open tasks.
1023:NA-importance chess articles
1004:17:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
936:18:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
918:17:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
900:17:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
467:00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
435:10:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
416:08:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
402:21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
374:20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
360:17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
348:14:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
331:20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
313:19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
295:15:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
7:
821:to reactivate your request.
809:has been answered. Set the
626:Bishop and knight checkmate
618:Bishop and knight checkmate
509:16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
385:, because that falls under
112:Knowledge:WikiProject Chess
10:
1044:
1028:WikiProject Chess articles
977:17:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
962:17:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
868:23:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
841:00:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
728:03:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
713:00:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
688:00:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
610:00:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
600:00:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
532:02:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
115:Template:WikiProject Chess
660:11:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
645:08:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
64:
46:
574:05:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
551:23:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
692:So far, I put it under
222:will turn out useful.
989:King's Indian Defence
928:Sagittarian Milky Way
472:"Tournaments" section
453:List of chess players
369:); think about it.--
335:I was talking about
628:into the template?
367:Knowledge:Namespace
341:Template:Team Sport
967:Yes definitely. --
884:Three Knights Game
34:content assessment
833:Docteurziedhaddad
825:
824:
561:
413:Ioannes Pragensis
371:Ioannes Pragensis
345:Ioannes Pragensis
310:Ioannes Pragensis
278:Ioannes Pragensis
199:Ioannes Pragensis
168:Ioannes Pragensis
151:"Players" section
134:
133:
130:
129:
126:
125:
95:WikiProject Chess
1035:
993:Sicilian Defence
971:
950:Bongcloud Attack
858:if appropriate.
850:
849:
816:
812:
802:
801:
795:
766:
760:
751:
745:
670:
559:
506:
389:, just like the
383:Sicilian Defence
120:
119:
116:
113:
110:
89:
84:
83:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
47:
25:
24:
23:
16:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1008:
1007:
996:Hochithecreator
991:as well as the
985:
969:
954:Hochithecreator
946:
910:Hochithecreator
892:Hochithecreator
876:
856:reliable source
847:
814:
810:
799:
793:
764:
758:
749:
743:
740:
664:
622:
582:
572:
539:
516:
502:
498:
494:
491:
487:
482:
474:
445:
153:
139:
117:
114:
111:
108:
107:
85:
78:
12:
11:
5:
1041:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1020:
984:
981:
980:
979:
945:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
921:
920:
875:
872:
871:
870:
823:
822:
803:
792:
789:
788:
787:
747:Chess openings
739:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
690:
621:
614:
613:
612:
584:I don't think
581:
578:
577:
576:
564:
538:
535:
515:
512:
500:
496:
492:
489:
485:
473:
470:
464:Brittle heaven
444:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
420:
419:
418:
378:
377:
376:
352:
351:
350:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
300:
299:
298:
297:
284:
283:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
211:
209:
208:
207:
206:
205:
204:
189:
188:
187:
186:
174:
173:
152:
149:
138:
135:
132:
131:
128:
127:
124:
123:
121:
118:chess articles
104:the discussion
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1040:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1021:
1019:
1016:
1015:
1013:
1006:
1005:
1001:
997:
994:
990:
978:
975:
972:
966:
965:
964:
963:
959:
955:
951:
937:
933:
929:
925:
924:
923:
922:
919:
915:
911:
908:
904:
903:
902:
901:
897:
893:
889:
888:Grob's Attack
885:
881:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
845:
844:
843:
842:
838:
834:
829:
820:
817:parameter to
808:
804:
797:
796:
786:
782:
778:
774:
773:
772:
771:
767:
761:
755:
748:
729:
725:
721:
716:
715:
714:
710:
706:
702:
700:
695:
691:
689:
685:
681:
677:
675:
668:
663:
662:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:
647:
646:
642:
638:
634:
632:
627:
624:Should I add
619:
611:
608:
604:
603:
602:
601:
597:
593:
589:
588:
575:
571:
567:
563:
555:
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
534:
533:
529:
525:
519:
511:
510:
507:
505:
504:
479:
476:I've added a
469:
468:
465:
461:
460:raison d'être
456:
454:
450:
436:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
414:
410:
405:
404:
403:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
379:
375:
372:
368:
363:
362:
361:
358:
353:
349:
346:
342:
338:
334:
333:
332:
329:
324:
323:
322:
321:
314:
311:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
296:
293:
288:
287:
286:
285:
282:
279:
275:
274:
273:
272:
269:
268:82.39.117.137
253:
250:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
228:
225:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
203:
200:
195:
194:
193:
192:
191:
190:
185:
182:
178:
177:
176:
175:
172:
169:
164:
163:
162:
161:
158:
148:
147:
144:
122:
105:
101:
97:
96:
88:
82:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
986:
983:Maróczy Bind
947:
877:
851:
830:
826:
818:
807:edit request
754:power~enwiki
741:
698:
696:"endgames".
693:
673:
630:
623:
585:
583:
540:
520:
517:
484:
483:
475:
459:
457:
449:in your face
448:
446:
432:Skarioffszky
399:Skarioffszky
394:
393:falls under
386:
357:Skarioffszky
328:Skarioffszky
292:Skarioffszky
264:
210:
154:
140:
137:Completeness
93:
87:Chess portal
40:WikiProjects
29:
880:Vienna Game
701:wertyxp2000
676:wertyxp2000
633:wertyxp2000
587:undermining
580:Undermining
543:2.25.130.41
1012:Categories
974:(Mrjulesd)
948:Given the
860:Goldsztajn
811:|answered=
777:Randy Kryn
720:Randy Kryn
667:Randy Kryn
652:Randy Kryn
607:Randy Kryn
478:tournament
428:verifiable
391:Légal Trap
337:WP:COREBIO
944:Bongcloud
907:Ruy Lopez
852:Not done:
694:"tactics"
524:Abhishikt
874:Openings
709:contribs
684:contribs
641:contribs
387:Openings
249:Remember
224:Rocksong
181:Rocksong
157:Rocksong
143:Remember
30:template
882:or the
650:Sure.
537:versus
36:scale.
970:Jules
815:|ans=
805:This
592:bamse
395:Traps
109:Chess
100:Chess
59:Chess
28:This
1000:talk
958:talk
932:talk
914:talk
896:talk
864:talk
837:talk
781:talk
724:talk
705:talk
680:talk
656:talk
637:talk
616:Add
596:talk
570:cont
566:talk
547:talk
528:talk
424:NPOV
813:or
530:)
503:ŁΨθ
426:or
411:.--
1014::
1002:)
960:)
934:)
916:)
898:)
866:)
839:)
819:no
783:)
768:)
762:,
750:}}
744:{{
726:)
711:)
707:|
686:)
682:|
658:)
643:)
639:|
598:)
560:IM
549:)
488:Яβ
455:.
430:.
998:(
956:(
930:(
912:(
894:(
862:(
835:(
779:(
765:ν
759:π
756:(
722:(
703:(
699:Q
678:(
674:Q
669::
665:@
654:(
635:(
631:Q
620:?
594:(
568:·
562:p
558:J
545:(
526:(
501:ι
499:Я
497:α
495:Я
493:τ
490:ι
486:α
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
