I want to formally nominate rules of chess for GA, but first I'll ask for reviews here. I've made comments on the Talk page. Bubba73 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2008

Support for GA-class As mentioned earlier, I think the article is ready for a GA-review. Actually I have already nominated the article at WP:GAC, so it is only a matter of time. SyG (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment As asked for by the nominator, I will review this article with the objective of GA-class in mind, so please forgive me if the review is not as thorough as you may want. Here are my first comments, based on this version of the article.

[edit] General remarks

• Done There is a few inconsistencies about numbers in letters, I will change them as I stumble upon.

I hope I have changed them all now. SyG (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done Most references do not have a proper title, I will change them as I stumble upon.

They are all correct now. SyG (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done Some diagrams have the caption at left, others have it centered. Consistency would be nice.

They are all at left now. SyG (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done The article uses several systems of citation (footnotes, harvard, ...). It is necessary to have only one, per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation styles.

Only Harvard style is used for citation is used now, even if another style is used for footnotes. I have limited experience on the subject but I believe it is fine. SyG (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it uses the best method - Author/date (Harvard) for references, footnotes for addition information or explanation. The USCF differences and some minor points are in the footnotes. Bubba73 (talk), 16:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• What about a section on famous occasions when the rules were breached, like when Kasparov castled against Polgar although he had already moved his King ? That could liven a bit the article without going out of the subject ?

The touch-move rule has one. The article castling has one. Bubba73 (talk), 01:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am taking that as a polite "No", and I understand there is no point in repeating the same anecdotes in various articles, so I will strike that out for me. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually the Kaspy-Polgar one isn't over there, but another one is. I don't have a source for Kaspy-Polgar. That could be in there. Bubba73 (talk), 16:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken! The Kasparov-Polgar incident was about Kasparov having touched a piece and then deciding to move another one. Here are some online sources:

• anecdotes.chessdom.com
• controltheweb

SyG (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually he briefly released the piece, but then moved the same piece to a different square. Bubba73 (talk), 21:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

←The game: [2]. Bubba73 (talk), 22:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Should this be:

1. added as a subsection
2. added within the section that has the rule
3. added as a footnote
4. not added? Bubba73 (talk), 00:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I... don't know ! A subsection is probably too much, as this anecdote is already described in the articles about Kasparov and Polgar. Maybe a brief mention in the section that has the rule, or a footnote. Or even not adding it at all, I am completely neutral on this. SyG (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

• Done I would try to avoid putting references in the Lead, they are less obstrusive in the main body of the article.

There are no more references in the Lead. SyG (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done "these standard chess rules are widely accepted by the international organization FIDE".

1. Which "standard chess rules" ? The ones explained in the article of Wikipedia ? It does not go well with the sentence just before, in which we say that different places have different rules.
2. the reader may not understand the word "widely" in the sentence. If they are accepted by FIDE this is only 1 organisation, so "widely" does not mean much. Or does that mean "most of the rules are accepted by FIDE, but not all" ?

The sentence has been restructured accordingly. SyG (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done "slightly modified by national organizations such as the US Chess Federation." Why is the USCF cited ? What does it bring to the reader ? Why not simply "slightly modified by national organizations." ?

The USCF is not in the Lead anymore. SyG (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done "There are slight variations of the rules for fast chess, correspondence chess, chess variants, etc."

1. What does "etc" aims for ? If that aims for "all the chess forms that do not have exactly the same rules", the sentence becomes a tautology.
2. It does not seem right to say there are slight variations for chess variants. In that latter case the variations can be huge. Also, the chess variants are not explained in the next sections of the article, so they should not be cited in the Lead.
3. When we say the rules for fast chess are slight variations, this implies fast chess is a secondary class of chess while 2h chess are the main class. Is it categorised as such in the rules ?

I made some changes, taking out "slight" and "etc".Bubba73 (talk), 01:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine for me. SyG (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done "Rules also govern (...) games that are played under time control." I may be missing the meaning here, it reads like an evidence to me.

I have slightly changed the sentence. SyG (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Initial setup

• Done "The boards commonly used for chess tournaments have (...) green and buff squares" There are two references, but I do not see where they support this statement.

The statement has been nuanced. SyG (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done I think the second paragraph is superfluous and has few to do with the rules of chess. I would delete it.

This second paragraph has mostly disappeared. SyG (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gameplay

• Done "Play continues until a king is checkmated, a player resigns, or a draw is declared" What about losing on time ?

A sentence has been added to cover this case. SyG (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done "Unlike Go, where the order of play is determined by the relative skills and handicaps of the players, the official chess rules do not include a procedure for determining who plays White." I do not think the reference to Go is that useful, as most readers will not know Go.

I took out that phras. Bubba73 (talk), 01:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine for me. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done diagram "Moves of a king" mixes the moves of the king and the castling. I would suggest to let only the moves of the king, while a diagram on castling can be added in the specific subsection about casting.

The suggestion has been implemented. SyG (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done diagram "Moves of a pawn" has a very long caption, which hurts layout. More problematic, it uses chess notation of moves that has not been explained: what does "last Black move was g7-g5" mean ?

The caption has been shortened and the notation clarified. SyG (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done As indicated on the Talk page, I like Bubba73's suggestion to change the presentation, with "en passant" and promotion upgraded to full subsections.

The change in presentation has been implemented. SyG (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done "Alternatively, an inverted rook may be used to represent a queen, or the pawn on its side can be used and the player should indicate which piece it represents" Really ? In France there is a hot debate whether it is actually permitted or not, and some players have argued that "a rook is a rook is a rook", be it reversed or not. Could we mention the precise text of FIDE allowing that ?

The sentence has been removed. SyG (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done in the subsection "Castling", maybe we should mention that it is authorised to move both pieces in the same time, but not to start with the rook.

I cannot find that in the rules, so I have added a footnote explaining why it is forbidden. SyG (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done in the subsection "Check", the caption of the diagram is obscure to the reader ("Harkness").

The caption has been clarified. SyG (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done in the subsection "Check", we use chess notation about the squares ("e5", "f4") without having explained to the reader how that works.

The word "square" has been added, which should be enough for any reader with a brain to figure out. and what about the other readers ?? SyG (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides adding the word "square" I added a small section "Terminology" which explains ranks and files and how squares are named. I don't think that the reader should have to go to algebraic chess notation, so just the sqaure names are used. That is explained in that section, with a diagram. Bubba73 (talk), 15:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] End of the game

• Done No mention of losing on time ?

A subsection on losing on time has been added. SyG (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done diagram has caption "Harkness", which does not bring much to the reader.

The caption has been clarified. SyG (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• in the subsection "Resigning", how about mentioning this game when Kramnick thought his opponent was offering a draw, while he was in reality resigning in a draw position ? (unfortunately I do not remember the name of the opponent; maybe Guelfand or Svidler)

I don't know about that game or have a reference. Bubba73 (talk), 01:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have looked for this game a bit but I have not been able to find it back, so I will strike that out. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done "Players would be likely to agree to a draw since it is a theoretical draw" (caption of second diagram). I find this example much too complex for the reader. Most players under 2000 Elo would not agree to a draw in this position, not knowing it is a theoretical draw. Also, the notion of "theoretical draw" is not defined in the article and is too difficult to explain. Can we find something easier ?

The diagram has been removed. SyG (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Competition rules

• Done the subsection "Touch-move rule" does not explain what happens if the touched piece cannot perform a legal move.

A sentence has been added covering this case. SyG (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done at the beginning of the game, it is customary to let his opponent touch all his pieces to place them exactly in the centre of the squares, without requiring him to say "j'adoube" every time.

The rules don't say anything about this, but I did change it to talk about what happens once the game starts. Bubba73 (talk), 01:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine for me. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done "Only the player whose turn it is to move may touch the pieces" I find the structure of the sentence a bit heavy, can we find something lighter ?

I have changed the sentence. SyG (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done "Each player must make all his moves in a specified time, or be subject to forfeiting the game." Here we should explain that "specified time" may only mean a general formula, like 2h + 30s per move, and not necessarily a specified duration.

The explanation has been deepened. SyG (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• "If there is a checkmate on the board, the player delivering checkmate wins instantly, no matter what is subsequently noticed about the time." What if the player has not noticed the checkmate, accepts his defeat on time, and comes back two hours latter claiming there was a checkmate on the board ?

I don't think that situation is covered anywhere. Bubba73 (talk), 22:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to avoid this possibility. SyG (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My change has been reverted :-( so the sentence is still unclear. SyG (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The rules don't say anything about noticing the checkmate before noticing that the time has run out. The way I read the rule is that if there is a checkmate on the board, that is what matters. Players don't have to announce checkmate. So if a move is made on the board making a checkmate, then it is noticed that the player's time expired, and then it is pointed out that there is a checkmate on the board, the game ends in checkmate. Bubba73 (talk), 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Article 5.1 says that checkmate ends the game. Somewhere else it says that if it is noticed later that the time ran out, it doesn't matter - the checkmate wins. So even after it was noticed that time ran out, if it is established that there was a checkmate, the game ends in checkmate. Bubba73 (talk), 22:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The player doing the checkmate doesn't have to announce it or stop his clock or stop both clocks. If he makes a move that checkmates, he can sit there and let his time run out, the opponent can call attention to that, but the checkmate takes priority. Bubba73 (talk), 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done If both players run out of time, it is a sudden death time control, and it can be established who ran out of time first, what happens ?

I think it is implied elsewhere that the one whose time ran out loses. Bubba73 (talk), 22:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence accordingly. SyG (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done "For example, a king and rook versus a king, bishop, and pawn cannot be won by either player virtually all of the time" Not true, these games will be won most of the time because most chess players (me included) are patzers who lose a piece every 10 moves.

This sentence has been removed. SyG (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irregularities

• Done In the first paragraph, the article does not mention that an illegal move in competition will usually allow a time sanction from the arbiter, even if it is not blitz chess.

I think I added a little on that. Expand if needed. Bubba73 (talk), 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see mention of that in the first paragraph, only in the second. But maybe I am fully inventing, so please allow me to ask the question: in standard chess (i.e. non-blitz), when there is an illegal move, does the arbiter allow some additional time to the plaintiff ? SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Article 7.4 says that the arbiter can adjust the time according to the best evidence. I added a sentence or two and moved the USCF rule to a footnote. Bubba73 (talk), 22:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Great ! SyG (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• in the subsection "Irregularities", what happens if there are problems with the clock ? For example the clock was not started with the correct amount of time, or the clock stopped during the game ?

The rules say to get a working clock, but I didn't think that was really needed in the article. Add it if you think it is needed. Bubba73 (talk), 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, sometimes you think you have a working clock, and then in the middle of the game it does not work anymore. Do the rules say sometimes on these cases ? SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Article 6.10 says that a defective clock is to be replaced and that the arbiter shall use his best judgment as to what time to set for the new clock. I don't think this is needed in the article because we can't cover all of the rules and this is a "what if" situation and the remedy is pretty obvious. Bubba73 (talk), 22:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure, it is not that obvious to me. For example can the arbiter:

1. continue the game with full time for both players ?
2. continue the game with the same amount of time for both players ?
3. restart the game from scratch (i.e. beginning position) ?
4. cancel the game and give half a point to both players ?

SyG (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Equipment

• Done There are redundancies between this section and the beginning of the section "Initial setup". I would advise to displace most of it in "Equipment".

I removed most of the redundancies that were in Initial setup. Bubba73 (talk), 01:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed down a little bit as well, and organised the paragraph between a paragraph on the chessboard and a paragraph on the chess pieces. I will try to add a third paragraph on the clock. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

• Currently the section is organised between one unnamed subsection on the rules themselves, and another subsection on the codification of the rules. I am not completely convinced this is the best approach. I would suggest a full chronological structure, presenting both the changed of the rules and the codification as they go by.

• The first subsection is too poor on dates, even vague ones. Each change of period should be mentioned.

See below.Bubba73 (talk), 02:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

These are my first remarks. All in all I find the article well balanced, which was not that easy to do given the risk of going into unneccessary details. Good job! SyG (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this the article which had to be deleted at all cost for violating WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE? :-) Anyway,

• I just made one change to the article, because 3x repetition or 50-move rule can only be declared by the player on the move, and it can be claimed simply by declaring an intention to make a 3x or 50 move situation arise with the next move. I had a bit of trouble in formulating a short and sweet sentence to that effect, (apologies for that) but what stood there before (that either player could claim the draw when the situation is there) was a bit inaccurate.
• I see that Schiller's "Official Rules of Chess" is frequently cited, this is of course OK, but those rules are only official in the US. Most, if not all, other countries go by the FIDE laws handbook here, laws of chess. For game basics, like the movement of the knight and the rules of stalemate and checkmate, this doesn't matter, but on issues like claiming a draw because the opponent is only trying to run you out of time, there are differences. (USCF has an "insufficient losing chances" rule, FIDE has "§10.2" about "normal means".) I think a reference to the relevant FIDE law is as important as the relevant USCF law.

Otherwise, I think this is a strong article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Some replies to/support of the points listed by SyG

• Overturned rooks are not legal, if you look through the chesscafe.com articles (Arbiter's Notebook) by Geurt Gijssen you will see that issue discussed.
• The issue of boards being green and buff has nothing to do with the rules, it is the fact that the squares are light and dark which matters. Incidentally, I think the line might be another piece of US-centrism, from pictures of tournaments throughout Europe, I think brown is the most common board color in Europe, and all my 88 rated games have been played on brown boards, whether they're wooden or plastic. But if we are going to discuss board color, that is for Chessboard not Rules of chess.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More ridiculous nagging from Sjakkalle

"No matter what the actual color of the board, the lighter-colored squares are called "white", and the darker-colored squares are called "black"". Is this true? I have often heard the squares referred to as "light" and "dark", simply to avoid confusion with the "white" and "black" of the pieces. This tutorial uses "light" and "dark" for example. I don't think this is a big deal though as from a mathematical viewpoint, chess could be played just fine on a monochromatic board. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The USCF Rulebook says black and white squares, but you are right - I've almost always heard/read light and dark squares, e.g. light-colored bishop. Bubba73 (talk), 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that commentaries on play and articles on strategy as often use e.g. "white-square weakness", "white-squared-bishop", "black-square ...", etc. If a ref is needed, a book on the French or Dutch might helpful as black-square weakness is a common problem for Black. -- Philcha (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replies to both of the above

Schiller's book is based on the FIDE rules. That's why I used it most often. The main chapter of it follows the FIDE Articles. Chapter 16 is a two-page chapter on USCF rules. Bubba73 (talk), 18:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your suggestions. Bubba73 (talk), 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Inverted rook" for a promoted piece - it isn't in the FIDE rules, but it is in Schiller's book. (Even the pawn on the side is in there, but that horrifies me since the pawn can roll to another square.) I'll make it a footnote. Bubba73 (talk), 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Castling by moving both pieces at the same time - the rules say that moves are to be made with only one hand. Under USCF rules, though, I think there is no penalty for moving both at the same time, just a warning. (There is even no penalty for moving the rook first in USCF!!!) I suppose you could pick up the king, pick up the rook, release the rook, and then release the king, but this is not covered. So it isn't clear to me what FIDE allows here. Bubba73 (talk), 23:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as using algebraic notation, I've changed references to say "the e6 square" and things like that. I hope that with the files and ranks labeled, that will be clear to readers. What do you think?

"how about mentioning this game when Kramnick thought his opponent was offering a draw, - I didn't know about that or know a reference.

It really helps to have other people reading this fresh. Bubba73 (talk), 00:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Position to illustrate draw by agreement - I didn't add this position, but I thought it was about as simple as it could be. Most draws by agreement have a more complex position. So far I haven't found a reference to a good position. If a better position isn't found, I suggest that it be removed. Bubba73 (talk), 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• "What if the player has not noticed the checkmate, accepts his defeat on time, and comes back two hours latter claiming there was a checkmate on the board ?"
• "If both players run out of time, it is a sudden death time control, and it can be established who ran out of time first, what happens ?"

The rules don't seem to say. Second one is covered earlier in the section - you lose if your time expires (except for the impossible to checkmate clause). Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• "In the first paragraph, the article does not mention that an illegal move in competition will usually allow a time sanction from the arbiter, even if it is not blitz chess."
• "in the subsection "Irregularities", what happens if there are problems with the clock? For example the clock was not started with the correct amount of time, or the clock stopped during the game ?"

First one - I think this would be getting into too many details. Also the rule says that the arbiter will try to restore the clock to what it was before the illegal move, i.e. nono time penalty. Second one, I don't know if the rules say. Bubba73 (talk), 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

History and codification: I got the best dates I could. Sometimes the sources only said "middle ages", "17th century", etc. There was no specific date for these changes, usually they were adopted in some place and gradually spread. Sometimes it took a couple of centuries to become widespread. Most of the time the rules were different depending on the location. I split the section like that so that "history" would be the history of the rules themselves and codification would be about how they were written into books, etc. One of the sources lists them by groups of changes like done in the history section. The codification section is about rulebooks or when sets of rules were printed, and those are in chronological order. But I don't think mixing the codification with the history of the rules is good because often rules came into existence long before they were codified. Also, the codification section mostly covers more recent events than the history section. Bubba73 (talk), 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all of the comments of the reviewers, and I made changes for most of them. For the few I didn't change I commented on them above. Please take another look. Bubba73 (talk), 18:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes! I personally think the article is ready for GA, so I have nominated it for GA-review. The GA process is currently under an important backlog, so it is best to fix a date as early as possible so that our article climbs the waiting queue. I would expect the GA-review to start in one month, which gives us more-than-enough time to fix the remaining small bits here and there. SyG (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

• "The rules continued to be slightly modified until the early 19th century, when they reached essentially their current form" does not appear to match the text, where Staunton's Chess Praxis (1860), Johann Berger (when?) and Handbuch des Schachspiels (1843 onwards) are the main codifications. Of course "essentially" leaves scope for debate. I'd prefer to drop "essentially" and say, "until the mid 19th century".

Well, there have been some small changes since then. Bubba73 (talk), 17:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the changes up to mid 19th century were more significant, as they affected the moves: Bledow concluded multiple queens should be allowed; IIRC one of the rules Staunton wanted to standadise was about castling. - Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Initial setup

• A GA reviewer might well complain about 2 lists of short phrases (Wikipedia:Embedded list). I know strict MOS compliance is not required for GA, but reveiwers often push a bit further. I'd de-listify the pieces, and defend the 2nd list as helping beginners to do the set-up step-by-step.
• There's a lot of white space at the end, because of the 2 images, which I agree are essential. If there's a smaller version of the "Chess pieces" box, about the height of a "large" chess diagram, I'd put them side-by-side in a right-aligned table (I'll do the table if needed). -- Philcha (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

• Should link to Algebraic chess notation - possibly as "main article".
• Should explain the reason for this section, e.g. these occur in almost all books & articles.
• Must explain that algebraic co-ordinates are always from the White player's side of the board, as "5th rank" are relative to each player.
• Explanation of "rank" doesn't work for me. The following is a bit long but I think gets the spirit: "Sometimes books and articles highlight one aspect of the board or of a piece's position because it has become stratecially important, for example ..."
• Should add e.g. "g file" or "h file" (I picked these as commmon attack routes) or "c file" (battleground of Sicilian and many QP / English / Catalan games).
• I don't think "Terminology" is the right title for the current content, which is about e.g. "Identifyng locations on the board".
• I'd get round reviewers' prejudice against bullet lists by using "definition list" format.
• Section needs refs for:
  • Algebraic chess notation
  • "rank" and "file"
  • "nth rank" -- Philcha (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This section was added just a few days ago. I wanted to avoid the reader having to get into algebraic chess notation at this point. However, in this article squares are designated by their algebraic notation name, and ranks and files are mentioned too. I thought it would be good to add a little bit of terminology up front. Of course, list of chess terms has entries for rank and file, so the article can just link to these. In fact it does link in at least a couple of places. So maybe the definition here can be omitted. Bubba73 (talk), 17:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gameplay

• I think "In addition, if the game is being played under a time control, the game ends if one player uses all of his alloted time players lose if they exceed the [[#Time control | time limit]]" would be more accurate.

Y Done Bubba73 (talk), 17:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Movement

• Y Done I'm not sure this is in the right place. The business about hands is appropriate for normal over-the-board competition but there are enough exceptions: correspondence & online games; tournaments involving computers; over-the-board play involving physically-handicapped players. I suggest it should be in competition rules, with qualifications like the ones I've mentioned.

OK. I put it these so that the section would have some text in it before the subsections started. Bubba73 (talk), 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is in Article 4 of the FIDE rules, which also has touch-move, so I moved it down there. Bubba73 (talk), 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Basic moves

• Needs at least one ref, e.g range of pages in any of thousands of decent books.
• "The pawn is also involved in the two special moves en passant and promotion, below": I'd prefer and interna link to where there special features are described. If there's no convenient section header or you think it mmigh change, you can use {{anchor}} to create a destination name for the link(s).

Y Done Bubba73 (talk), 17:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Castling

• Y Done Forgive me if I'm being dumb, but why is "The king and the rook must be on the same rank" needed? I would think "The player must never have moved either the king or the rook involved in castling" implies this.

This is in the actual rules and the reason is explained in the footnote (otherwise the rule would allow castling with a rook that was the result of a pawn promotion on e8 or e1). There also used to be a sentence in the article about that, but I took it out because it is covered by the footnote.

Resolved.

Bubba73 (talk), 17:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Could do with a start position diagram, with arrows showing the movement of the pieces involved. Since this would need arrows, would need to a be a normal image rather than a chess diagram template. Then put them side-by-side to minimise white space between sections.

Well, the starting position of the pieces is shown earlier. I'm not sure this is needed. Bubba73 (talk), 17:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear, I didn't mean full board, I meant e.g.

• White K on e1, R on h1. Arrow from e1 to g1. Arrow h1 to f1.
• Black K on e8, R on a8. Arrow from e8 to c9. Arrow a8 to d8. -- Philcha (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That can't be done with the standard chess diagrams. I think what we have is OK. As an alternative, there could be a diagram showing the kings and rooks in uncastled positions, as castling does. Bubba73 (talk), 21:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Standard diagram would be OK. -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a diagram, but it needs to be formatted better (too much white space). Bubba73 (talk), 04:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Now side by side - does that work for you? -- Philcha (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Bubba73 (talk), 21:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] En passant

• Y Done Needs to clarify which pawn is which every time, e.g. "player X's pawn".
• Y Done Needs a ref.

I reworded this, see if it is OK now. Has a ref now. Bubba73 (talk), 17:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a bugger to explain! How about one of:

• If A's pawn moves forward two squares and B has a pawn on his fifth rank and on an adjacent file, B's pawn can capture A's pawn as if A's pawn had only moved one square.
• If one player's pawn moves forward two squares and the second player has a pawn on his fifth rank and on an adjacent file, the second player's pawn can capture the first player's pawn as if the fisrt player's p[awn had only moved one square. -- Philcha (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Either of those is OK with me. If I had to pick, I'd pick the first one. Bubba73 (talk), 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Inserted first one. -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pawn promotion

• Y Done Should clarify that promoting player can have upmteen of a piece. Final position of Capablanca-Alekhine World Championship Match 1927 game 11 would be a nice exmaple.
• Y Done Needs a ref.

Has a ref. The rules don't state how many pieces you can have, but I think the article does state that it is not limited to captured pieces, so I think this is an obvious consequence of the rules and what the article says. Bubba73 (talk), 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious if you've had a little experience, but not to a complete beginner. I saw the discussion of how often this article is accessed. A lot of newbies appear to be using it as a manual. -- Philcha (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added this and the one about double check as footnotes. Incorporate them into the article if you think that would be better. Bubba73 (talk), 02:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In main text. -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Check

• Y Done Should mention double check forces king move.
• Y Done Needs a ref.

Has a ref. I don't think this is in the rules, but it is an obvious consequence. Bubba73 (talk), 17:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious if you've had a little experience, but not to a complete beginner. I saw the discussion of how often this article is accessed. A lot of newbies appear to be using it as a manual. -- Philcha (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In main text. -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] End of the game

[edit] Draws

• "perpetual check" needs ref for past status and present status.

Y Done Bubba73 (talk), 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time control

• A 2nd para about time control, with a larger section to come! I see why there are 2 brief early mentions. I suggest "loses if he / she / it exceeds any time limit that is in force", linking "time limit" to main section as described above.

[edit] Competition rules

• Should note that these mainly apply to OTB play between non-handicapped humans, as above.

Y Done Bubba73 (talk), 18:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timing

• In "Time controls vary: sometimes each player will have a limited amount of time to make all of their moves whereas in other cases each player may have a certain amount of time to make a certain number of moves. Also, the player may gain a small amount of additional time for each move made", I think "also" is confusing. Does this apply to both fixed time and time per N moves, or to only one, or is it a separate scheme?
• "If player A calls attention to the fact that player B is out of time, player A is not out of time, and player A has the possibility to checkmate, even against the most unskilled defense, then player A wins automatically. If player A does not have the possibility of checkmate then the game is a draw" confused me. I'd think that if player A does not have the possibility of checkmate then B loses on time.

If player B's time runs out there must be some sequence of moves that could lead to him being checkmated, otherwise it is a draw. I've reworded these - see if they are OK now. Bubba73 (talk), 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just read Heisman's Time Management During a Chess Game, which my browser dates as 18 June 2003, and it seem the rules have changed since last time I used a chess clock (I won't confess about when!). Heisman says:

• "The most recent side-effect of the sudden death time limit is the US Chess Federation's "insufficient losing chances" rule. This states that if you are NOT playing with a time delay clock and you are about to lose on time in a clearly non-losing position, you can claim a draw." Is this a universal rule or limited to the USCF?

As far as I know, only the USCF has that rule. FIDE is different. Bubba73 (talk), 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• "If you were playing without a time delay - and in a tournament that did not allow "insufficient losing chances" - would you rather be up a Queen in the middlegame with 10 seconds left or be down a Queen with 10 minutes left?" This implies that the "insufficient losing chances" clause is used / ignored at the tournament's discretion.

Well, it is USCF only. Bubba73 (talk), 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The FIDE Handbook:

• General Rules and Recommendations for Tournaments: Time Control section says, "There is a single time control for all major FIDE events: 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one" and mentions no "insufficient losing chances"provision.
• But section 6.10 of Laws of Chess says, "Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay." This accords with what you wrote, although it does not explain who judges whether "the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay."

US Chess: Clock Rules apparently allows the tournament director to make a "wet finger" guess about whether player A can force mate. The page carries a warning "This page is part of our old website and the information on it may no longer be current. Please check our home page main.uschess.org for more current information." However I got nothing using their search engine.

My bewildered conclusions:

• The article should include "(if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate) even with the most unskilled counterplay".

It says that in effect, about whether or not there being a sequence of legal moves that results in checkmate. Bubba73 (talk), 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• It should state that FIDE's rules do not specify how to decide this.
• It should state that the USCF makes it a draw if "The draw shall be awarded if the director believes that a Class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both having ample time."

That is in a footnote. Bubba73 (talk), 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since neither FIDE nor the USCF page says the "insufficient losing chances" rule may be used or ignored at a tournament's choice, I'd ignore Heiman's implication that tournaments have a choice.

I don't think there is a choice - it depends on USCF or not. I think he was just comparing the differing rules. Bubba73 (talk), 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know when the rules changed, but Heisman implies it happened after the 1990 Kasparov-Karpov match.
• So that readers will understand "lost on time" in older literature, the article should state that before 1990 (if you have no better fix on the date), a player who ran out of time lost, irrespective of how good his / her position was. --

I have rulebooks from different periods, I'll see if I can find out. Bubba73 (talk), 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a 1978 USCF rulebook which I got about 1982 or 83. It doesn't say anything about insufficient losing chances or possible checkmate against unskilled play. Of course, this was before Sudden Death and before delay clocks. In the margin I wrote "also must have mating material", so that must have been added somewhere around the early 1980s, but I can't be sure. Bubba73 (talk), 22:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be best to ask Krakatoa when it changed, and for a ref. -- Philcha (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he has 1500 chess books, which is 1300 more than I have. Secondly, I have had periods of chess inactivity that lasted years. Bubba73 (talk), 23:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The 1992 edition of the Oxford Companion doesn't have it either. Of course, it might not have been updated. Bubba73 (talk), 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that FIDE made changes in 1992, so that is probably when it happened, but I don't have any reference. Bubba73 (talk), 03:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Philcha (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conduct

• Re "outside info" might be nice to allude to Kramnik-Topalov scandal, and any other notable accusations / disputes.
• Y Done In "An announcement of "check" is done in amateur games, but it should not be done in rated games, what's a "rated game".

the reference says "rated", but I changed it to "officially sanctioned". Is that OK? Bubba73 (talk), 17:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

fine -- Philcha (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Equipment

• "Pieces of the Staunton chess set design are the recommended standard for competitive play" - we had this at the reviews of Howard Staunton. Refs:
  1. Kasparov, G. (2003). My Great Predecessors, Part I. Everyman Chess. p. p. 17. ISBN 1-85744-330-6. 
  2. Saidy, A.; Lessing, N. (1974). The World of Chess. Random House. p. p. 88. ISBN 0-394-48777-X. 
  3. "Standards of Chess Equipment and tournament venue for FIDE Tournaments". FIDE. http://www.fide.com/info/handbook?id=16&view=category. Retrieved 2008-06-19. 

Kasparov just says that they've been used around the world for a century and a half. Bubba73 (talk), 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, i took someone else's word for it.

However FIDE says "recommended". -- Philcha (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

• Nothing about correspondence play or play between computers? If not, should "see also" to articles on these, even if you have to create stubs. The alternative would be writing these into this article, which would make it longer, and GA review is (hopefully) imminent.

-- Philcha (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Correspondence chess is mentioned in the lead. I don't think this article should go into those rules. Bubba73 (talk), 18:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not go into those rules.

However their existence is mentioned in the lead, which creates the expectation, or requirement per WP:LEAD, that they should appear in the main text.

I think it would be better to have a "see also" plus a comment in the lead that the "Competition rules" apply only to OTB play between humans.

That also makes me think "Timing" should be moved into "Competition rules", as it only applies to OTB play between humans. -- Philcha (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, something needs to be done about those variations, I need to think about it. Yes, Timing would be better under Competition rules. Bubba73 (talk), 22:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

the main Timing section is under Competition. SyG said that it should also be mentioned under "End of the game", so I added a short subsection making a forward reference to the main Timing section. Bubba73 (talk), 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it is - I need new eyes (or worse ...). -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

• This could do with some refs re:
  • Rules by Philidor, Sarratt & Lewis.
  • Chess clubs' rules, includng those named.
  • Staunton's pland for "Constituent Assembly". The intro to his 1851 tournament book covers this, and IIRC gives examples of some issues: Howard Staunton. The Chess Tournament. Hardinge Simpole. ISBN 1843820897.  This can be viewed online at or downloaded as PDF from "Google books: The Chess Tournament, by Howard Staunton". http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_SUCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR24&dq=1851+london+tournament+book+staunton&lr=#PPR10,M1. Retrieved 2008-06-19. 
  • Ludwig Bledow, infuenced by Karl Schorn, argued that a player should be allowed to have multiple queens (as a result of pawn promotions), and this was incorporated into the rules. He may also have been the originator of the touch-move rule: Spinrad, J.P.. "Ludwig Erdmann Bledow". chesscafe.com. http://www.chesscafe.com/text/spinrad11.pdf. 
  • von der Lasa. Don't have handy, I'm afraid.
  • Acceptance of Staunton's Chess Praxis in English-speaking countries.
  • Acceptance of Johann Berger or Handbuch des Schachspiels in German-speaking countries.
  • "FIDE abandoned the idea of a universal set of laws": I think a GA reviewer will ask for page num in Hooper & Whyld. -- Philcha (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I got all of this material from the references cited. I don't have von der Lasa's book either, but the reference cited states it. As far as the page number in Hooper & Whyld, my feeling is this: the page number is there to enable someone to check out the reference. In the case of an encyclopedia, if it is under the topic as the article's title, I don't see the need for a page number. Futhermore, there are multiple editions of the encyclopedias, so page numbers change, but the entry titles usually do not. Bubba73 (talk), 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"there are multiple editions of the encyclopedias, so page numbers change, but the entry titles usually do not" is an excellent point. I share your reservation about page numbers, as UK editions are often slightly different from US. In paleontology articles the page numbers of my copy of Cowen's "History of Life" (UK paperback 3rd ed; latest is 4th; 5th in preparation) are of little use to anyone but me.

Can you give the name(s) of the entry(ies)? -- Philcha (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In H&W it is under "laws, history of", which is sufficiently different from the article title that it probably merits a page number. Bubba73 (talk), 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Does that entry cover all the items in "Codification" as well? (sorry, I should have used the sub-heading "Codification" earlier) -- Philcha (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the information in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs came from H&W. Bubba73 (talk), 04:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

I agreed with SyG, this article is ready for GA review. -- Philcha (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The three reviewers (SyG, Philcha and Sjakkalle) think the article is ready for GA-review. SyG (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-nominate one could say, currently B-class. This article is well referenced, has relevant images and I believe is clearly written. I don't think anything major is missing. I also had it reread by an expert bughouse player (2400+ on FICS) and ran it through auto-peerreviewer. Voorlandt 08:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks very good to me. The article was in much worse shape a few months ago. I especially like the animated sample game. IanOsgood 23:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I ran the article through an automatic peer-review and it found no problem. It looks one of the best chess articles I have seen, certainly better than some other ones nominated for A-class test. I still have the following remarks (a tad mean, I agree):

• there seem to be a broken link to BabasChess
  • At some point there was an article on Babaschess, however I don't think one red link is problematic (see my view User:Voorlandt) Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• it would be nice to have a footnote for the origin of the name "Bughouse"
  • It actually says in the second paragraph of the lead Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• the sentence "Bughouse chess seems to have developed early 1960s independently in different places" seems to be the only "History" section, which is a bit too light.
  • This is a weak point of the article and I am not sure how to improve this. I tried hard to find other sources but failed. The closest I got was an email from the editor of the bughouse newsletter (1992-1994) by Jeremy Graham who could confirm this estimate from memory. I now added a few words acknowledging the fact that little is known (so readers don't feel like information is being held back) Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• the article says that bughouse is the normal chess rules plus some special rules, but there is no link to "normal chess rules" (maybe in the "See also" section ?).
  • if you click on chess on that line, it actually redirects to the chess rules Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• the sentence "Dropped pawns may promote, but convert back to pawns when captured" may be expanded, as I do not see how it can work in practice (OK, I have never played bughouse). Do you place a queen on the board or do you let the pawn ? In both cases, how do you remember what it is ?
  • This was quite unclear indeed, I added an extra line explaining it. Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• is there a way to make a direct link to "clock move", instead of the slightly less direct link to List_of_chess_terms#C ?
  • I don't think so, but maybe someone else knows. Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• the "Variations" section briefly indicates that bughouse may be played by mail, but it should be mentioned in the main section first.
  • Do you mean the lead? If so, I don't think it is important enough to be mentioned there, since play by mail is not that common.
• the "over the board" section repeats that "Bughouse seems to have developed early 1960s", which is already told in the main section.
  • Removed it from the lead. Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• would it be possible to add a few "bughouse champions" who are NOT also "normal chess" champions ?
  • Thanks a lot for encouraging this, I added the most important ones (with ref) Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• references do not seem to be sorted.
  • I think they are, but maybe missing something (Manson, Penn, Pritchard, Zimmerman). Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, a great article that deserves a A-class! SyG 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for reading it so thoroughly!, your review was really useful and I think it improved the article Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have put this article as GA-class, waiting for a third positive review before passing it as A-class. Anyone? SyG 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

'Support' I'm impressed with this - I'm a huge chess fan but had never heard of bughouse until I saw the article - well referenced, informative, etc. Some sections do need more depth really, but considering it's not hugely well known the lack of information is understandable. Obviously to get to FA it will need more in these areas, but I'd put it as A-class. Oh, and I've just corrected half a dozen grammar/phrasing errors in the openings paragraph, which now reads much better. Addyboy 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for going through it! I rewritten the openings section after a few comments from friends, but obviously without rereading it properly. Which sections do you think need expanding? I think the main material is there, except for the history, for which unfortunately very little information is available. Voorlandt 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Close the review Finally a third support has arrived, thanks to Addyboy! As no major remarks seem pending and no one has opposed, I shall close this review and assess as A-class. Applause to Voorlandt for having improved this article so much in the past months. Next step is FAC, I guess! SyG 14:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This article, primarily written by me, is, I think, very well-researched and referenced, covers the topic thoroughly, and as best I can tell, satisfies all the criteria for A-class. Quale wrote on the article's talk page, "I think it's very good, and your sections and section titles are much better than the ones I was thinking about. I'm bumping the rating to B. I would say it's an A-class article, but many WP:CHESS members think that the project A-rating requires a (semi-)formal review." Krakatoa (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly a very fine article, well researched and documented. I have only two minor style issues, and they are not that big and could go either way.

1. Capitalization of "black" and "white". Usually these are when they are substitutes for a player's name, otherwise not, e.g. "then Black played..." when referring to a person, but "... the black queen... ". So maybe these should not be caps in the article. But I'm not sure.
2. Percent. The "%" character is used several times, and the style is that "%" is used in scientific work and in tables, info boxes etc, and that "percent" is used otherwise in text. This is no big deal.

Bubba73 (talk), 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address the % issue now, substituting "percent" where reasonably possible. But I think doing so in a sentence like this would result in a nightmare: "Streeter found that overall White scored +38% =31% -31% (total 53.5%); in 1851-78, White scored +46% =14% -40% (total 53%); in 1881-1914, White scored +37% =32% -31% (total 53%); in 1914-32, White scored +37% =37% -26% (total 55.5%)." Compare "Streeter found that overall White scored +38 percent =31 percent -31 percent (total 53.5 percent); in 1851-78, White scored +46 percent =14 percent -40 percent (total 53 percent); in 1881-1914, White scored +37 percent =32 percent -31 percent (total 53 percent); in 1914-32, White scored +37 percent =37 percent -26 percent (total 55.5 percent)." Unbelievably long, cumbersome, and ugly; the reader will be asleep by the time he/she staggers to the end of that sentence. I think that in effect, a sentence like this one is a "table," so use of the % symbol rather than the word is appropriate.

As for capitalization of "white" and "black," I think the article does so appropriately. I don't believe that a phrase like "the black queen" ever occurs in it. Invariably, the article uses the two words to refer to the player(s) conducting the white or black pieces. I think that in that context "White" and "Black" are correct and almost universally used. See, e.g., The Oxford Companion to Chess (1st ed. 1984), p. 297 (article on "SCHLIEMANN DEFENCE") ("By playing 3...f5 Black weakens the diagonal a2-g8, but Jaenisch felt that his move might be practicable because White has not placed his light bishop on this diagonal."); Suba, Dynamic Chess Strategy, p. 134 ("Even the symmetrical variations of some openings present White with a critical moment at an early stage and he cannot progress without making concessions to Black."); Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch, p. 231 (among many other examples on this page and those following, "White maintained a 56%/44% winning percentage for most of the century . . . . But it is also true that some of the world's top players have scored brilliantly with Black."). Krakatoa (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked about the use of white and black on the help desk. I got two replies and they agreed with my thinking: Wikipedia:Help_desk#capitalization_of_.22white.22_and_.22black.22_in_chess. Bubba73 (talk), 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what you asked: "This is a style issue - when should "white" and "black" be capitalized when talking about chess? My understanding is that they should only be capitalized when substituting for a proper name, such as "... White played the queen...", and not otherwise, such as "the black pieces". Is that correct?" I don't believe the article ever uses a phrase like "black pieces"/"Black pieces" so your example doesn't seem apropros. The article uses "White" and "Black" to refer to the collective results of persons playing the white pieces and persons playing the black pieces, respectively. As I said above, that as far as I can tell is the approach universally taken by chess writers (I cited the Oxford Companion to Chess, Suba, and Watson, and can add more if you like). What sentences in the article do you consider defective in this respect? To give a hypothetical, do you think that in a sentence like, "Statistics show that White scores 55 percent and Black 45 percent." "White" and "Black" should be lower-case, e.g. "Statistics show that white scores 55 percent and black 45 percent?" As I say, I think few if any chess writers outside of Wikipedia would write the latter. Krakatoa (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that there are respected books that use Black and White that way, but there are plenty that don't. My understanding is that it should be like a proper name - caps when substituting for a proper name. In the case of this article, it is talking about an abstract player of the white or black pieces, not a particular player. I'm no expert, and could go either way, but I think not caps unless they are substitutes for proper names of a particular person is in keeping with our style. Bubba73 (talk), 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, if "White" and "Black" are used as if a proper name would be used, even though there is no specific person, I think that is OK. So it would be "... the black queen... " versus "... Black's queen...", since in the second case, it is taking the place of a proper name. So I'm OK with that. Bubba73 (talk), 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Approve From what Bubba73 has written hereunder, I will consider he approves the article as A-class, unless he states otherwise here. SyG (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Approve Given that the comments in my review hereabover have found solutions, I approve that this article should be given A-class, on the basis of this version.

Of course there is still room for improvement so I am not sure the article would do it to FA-class. For example the interesting comments made by Voorlandt on the Talk page of the article about the relativity of the advantage depending on the level of players. But as long as there is no source it is difficult to work further on that. SyG (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hereunder are my comments and proposals for improvements, based on the review of this version of the article.

in the Lead

• The link between the first sentence and the second one may not be clear for an outsider, because in the first sentence we talk about "advantage" and in the second one we talk about "more chances to win", without doing an explicit link between these two notions. After all, an "advantage" could also be "less chances to lose" ? Y Done

I think I've tied these up, see what you think. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The expression "scoring between 53 and 56 percent overall" in the second sentence is unclear for an outsider, even if it is explained in later sections. It may be understood that White wins 53% of the games, which is not what is meant. Y Done

note added to explain this Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The word "theorists" may not be clear for an outsider. What is a theorist, especially regarding chess ? Y Done

As mentioned below, in response to SunCreator, I intend to write an article on chess theory (i.e. opening, middlegame, endgame theory) and link to that.

• The expression "best play by both sides" may be worth a link to something (an article on Game theory ?) because for a non-game expert it may not be clear. Y Done

Not sure what to link to; doesn't seem to be addressed in game theory. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is some discussion of that at Endgame tablebase, but not enough in my opinion. Perhaps that could be a small article, or probably better a term. Bubba73 (talk), 02:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to the "perfect play" section of Solved game, so I consider this DONE. SyG (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the sentence "the game should conclude in a win for White or a draw", why not adding a link to Draw (chess) ?Y Done

I also created a chess term for "win" and linked to that. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is an obvious typo in the sentence "a game of chess should conclude in a draw with best draw". I will correct that. Y Done

• The first sentence implies that White actually has an advantage, which is not proven by anyone. At first I thought that this was a problem and maybe the sentence should be phrased like "the probable advantage", but now I think it is not so bad because the third sentence clearly states that there is consensus on that. Y Done

I take it this is OK, then. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Lead does not reflect the last paragraph of the last section, in which it is hinted that moving first may not be an advantage. Y Done

in the section "First move statistics"

• Maybe the first paragraph would look better as a table.

I don't know how to do this. Maybe someone else could do this? Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a table. I'm not sure if how it looks is appropriate. With/without border, what should be listed, to go at the beginning/middle or end of paragraph. All questions I don't have a clear answer to. SunCreator (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC).

• The use of signs +, = and - is not explained, nor is the way to reach a total percentage. Y Done

• The phrasing "More recently (in 2005)" is a bit redundant and heavy, the first two words would be sufficient. Y Done

• I do not understand the structure of the second paragraph. It looks like just a list of evidences, which is good but could read better with one or two sentences to add fluidity or insight.Y Done

I added an explanatory sentence at the beginning of the paragraph.

in the section "Drawn with best play"

• I find the formulation "The classical view is that White's objective is to extend" a bit heavy because of the repetition of "is". Why not something like "In the classical view, White's objective is to extend" ? But as I am not a native English-speaker, please tell me if I am wrong.Y Done

sentence rewritten Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the first sentence I would replace the verb "secure" by "reach", otherwise the reader may think that equality always remains once achieved.Y Done

• What assesses Weaver Adams as "prominent" ? Y Done

Wrote reference explaining this. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the second sentence of the second paragraph, I do not understand why the first letter of the quote is in upper case. Is it compliant with WP:MOS ? Y Done

I think so. Look at these examples given (not addressing this exact point, admittedly) under Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation_marks:

Correct: Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable."

(The period is part of the quoted text.)

Correct: Martha asked, "Are you coming?"

Krakatoa (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Bubba73 (talk), 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

allright then, DONE for me. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• According to WP:ELLIPSES, I think the three dots in the quote of Watson should be in brackets, like [...] Y Done

I don't see why. The guideline you cite says "An ellipsis does not normally need square brackets around it, since its function is usually obvious—especially if the guidelines above are followed. But square brackets may optionally be used for precision, to make it clear that the ellipsis is not itself quoted; this is usually only necessary if the quoted passage also uses three period in it to indicate a pause or suspension." The quoted passage doesn't use three periods in it, so square brackets are not necessary. Krakatoa (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. The brackets are generally only used around an ellipsis if you use an ellipsis in a quote that already has one. Bubba73 (talk), 03:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

allright then, DONE for me. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

in the section "White to Play and Win"

• According to WP:HEAD, the names of sections shall not include "special characters", although I am not sure the character " should be considered as special.Y Done

• I find it problematic to name the section with the title of a book, while this section talks about other things than the book.Y Done

I have removed the quotation marks, so the title now is not just an allusion to the book. I think the title is a good one to tersely capure the concept -- especially since I reference Berliner saying that he is a disciple of Adams. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The player Horowitz shall be refered to by his full name (i.e. including surname), in order to be consistent with all the others and to avoid any REDIRECT link. Y Done

I have slightly changed the link in order to avoid any REDIRECT. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hans Berliner should be presented as "a former World [...]" and not "the former World [...]". Y Done

• Jeremy Silman should be presented as "International Master" and not "IM", in order to be consistent with all the others.Y Done

I think I've addressed this. The first International Master I cited, I used "International Master," for the next one I used IM and then just an unwikified "IM" thereafter.

OK, not a big deal anyway, DONE for me. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Randy Bauer and Taylor Kingston are quoted but their credibility is not explained. Why are they authoritative ? It seems Randy Bauer is not even an IM ?Y Done

I removed the text references to Bauer and Kingston (though they're still mentioned as references). They're respected reviewers, I think, but I don't know what (if anything) their titles are. I don't think either is an IM. As I say, I would dearly love to get hold of the Watson review, in which case I would probably just quote him and forget about Bauer and Kingston altogether. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is an undue space before the 26th reference. I will correct that. Y Done

in the section "Modern perspectives"

• There are undue spaces in "1. e4" and "1. d4" in the quotation of Kaufman. Y Done

Originally, I quoted him as he wrote it (same thing with others who wrote "1 e4" and such). For the sake of consistency, I've changed this sort of thing to "1.e4" and "1.d4" with a parenthetical note added to the reference "(notation form changed)." Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

others

• Are there no players/experts who have argued that Black may have an advantage ? Y Done

Rowson has a chapter on Black's advantages. I am inclined to add subsections to the article on "The nature of White's advantage(s)" and "The nature of Black's advantage(s)."

I think the new sections you added are great to present Black's points. DONE for me. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Shall we speak about players who have better statistics with black than with White (maybe Morozevich ?, although I have not checked his statistics) ?

Perhaps, if you know of such players. I've never heard of any GMs who consistently score better with Black than with White. I would think that there would probably have to be some significant number of such players, not just one, to make it worth writing about. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I happened upon a thread at chessgames.com talking about Morozevich's excellent results with Black. On this page malthrope writes, "Just looking quickly over his stats here on CG.com we get... Database of 969 games with Moro winning 410 times... Wins with White 220 (53.66%) Wins with Black 190 (46.34%)" I haven't checked the math, but if malthrope is right even Morozevich does better with White than Black (I'm assuming that the 969 games are split roughly evenly between the two colors). Krakatoa (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Shall we speak about those openings like the exchange variation of the French defence where it is sometimes felt that Black has a kind of advantage even if the position is symetric, precisely because White has to move first ? Y Done

I've added sections on "Reversed openings" and "Symmetrical openings" and the problems those pose for White, and specifically discuss the Exchange French. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no section "See also". It is not compulsory to have some, but I find they add some value. Y Done

All in all I am really impressed by this article. It is factual, precise and well-referenced on a subject that is really not easy. At the end of this review I would like to propose it to GA-class at least. For A-class, let's wait until the end of this review :) SyG (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

(Moved from the articles talk page.): Don't think headings should be in quotes. "Drawn with best play", "White to play and win" and Statistics is a short ambiguous(on it's own) word for a title.Y Done

Done a peer review and this is bits I think apply.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. The lead is to be as concise as possible while still covering the whole article. It seems to do that. Y Done

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?] Y Done

• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?] Y Done

• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]Y Done

• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]Y Done

• Reflist 2 has come under criticism as it doesn't show well on various browsers and for some it makes the wording so small it can't be read. Y Done

SunCreator (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added links, and created a few articles and sub-articles to make links to, so I think that is pretty much done. Please link anything else that you think should be linked. I do intend to create a chess theory article, and link to that when I talk about "theorists," but that will take some work. (I want to talk about opening theory, middlegame theory, and endgame theory.) As for the lead, the guideline says it can be "up to four paragraphs" and should summarize the article well. The current lead is one paragraph (while doesn't violate the guideline, since no minimum length is specified), and I think it summarizes the article well. So I think I've addressed all the items in your peer review. Krakatoa (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing you linked to is entitled "Multiple columns deemed bad." I don't see how that applies to this article -- its reference list only has one column. Note 1 is followed by note 2, then note 3, note 4, and so on until the last note, which is at the bottom. That's one column, right? Krakatoa (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For me (using Firefox browser) it shows as two columns that's because it's using {{reflist|2}}} to use only one column it would just be {{reflist}}. SunCreator (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change now. I would not apply this to other article but only here because I think the idea is to push this article to Featured article level. SunCreator (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Neanderthal that I am, I use Internet Explorer, so I couldn't see the problem. I'm gratified to think that you think the article could be a Featured Article. As you know, we have precious few chess article (0.2%) above even B-class. Krakatoa (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Statistics section

I think consideration should be given to splitting up this section and include in other parts of the article. It's sure it's fine in context but a section with statistics might not be to welcomed by some reviewers. SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, the statistics section is in a way the most significant part of the article. It's all well and good to debate, in a vacuum, propositions like, "does White win by force from the starting position"?, "does White have an advantage, and if so, how much?", "does Black have the advantage, because White has to commit himself first?", and so on. The statistics section provides data against which such questions must be considered -- i.e. it's hard to claim that White wins by force if Black scores around 45% (including in games by the strongest players). I also think it would be weird to split this information up, apportioning a sentence to this section, a sentence to that section, and so on. All of the information in the "First move statistics" section is closed related and belongs together. Krakatoa (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the statistics are important and should remain in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

They are important. Two more suggestions, how about renaming the section so the word 'Statistics' is not included. how about moving the section down to the end of the articles order, so that it like a concluding section. SunCreator (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What is one supposed to name it without using the word "statistics"? "Winning percentages"? How is that better? What's the bugaboo about statistics? Krakatoa (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wild about moving the statistics section down to the end. It provides important information necessary to evaluate the relative plausibility of the "Drawn with best play" and "White to play and win" arguments. It's really hiding the ball to put it at the end ("hiding the lede," as some would put it). Does putting it at the beginning violate any Wikipedia principle? Krakatoa (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, is see you;ve renamed it, that seems good. I can't recall where I read about it. It wasn't a guideline, but rather some talk page but I'm unable to locate it to recheck it's context. The nearest I found is Wikipedia:NOT#STATS but that doesn't apply because this article has the statistics nicely explained. SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor points

From this version.

• How about caption below the image of Wilhelm Steinitz. At first glance the image looks unrelated to the topic. I don't want to add OR, but if there is something along the lines of "Wilhelm Steinitz considered chess a draw with best play", that would enhance the image. Y Done
• Review tool, still thinks lead is inadequate. Looking at a (good length) suggestion of Wikipedia:Lead here, it seems sensible to expand the lead to be two paragraphs. Reading the FA criteria I get the idea that concise is better, if so then it's great as it is. SunCreator (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Use of capitalisation "White" "white" "Black" "black", especially in winning percentages section is not consistent. Are we happy that it's correct? Y Done I think(!?).
• +38% =31% −31% (total 53.5%) looks unattractive. How about some other way, perhaps "Win 38% Draw 31 % Lose 31%" or putting it in full "White wins 38% draws 31%, and loses 31% giving an overall result of 53.5%". Or even removing some of it given that it's now duplicated to the table. Y Done
• "concluded that White scored 54.1767% plus 0.001164 times White's Elo rating advantage, treating White's rating advantage as +390 if it is better than +390, or -460 if it is worse than -460." ref 10. This doesn't make sense to me at all. It is very interesting that the external reference recommends 35-[elo]-point rating deficit for White to compensate for White's advantage(!). Would seem useful to this article.
• Is "Hodgson-Arkell" self evident? Rather then say "Hodgson versus Arkell" and why not go to full names Julian Hodgson-Keith Arkell?
• Why are some moves bold while others "1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.0-0 0-0 5.d3 d6" are not?
• Ref 70 (Reinhard-Fischer game) is not as you might at first expect(with Fischer's claim), perhaps the comma should go outside the reference, or the sentence reworded to be clear what reference refers to what?
• Is sentence wording "defended tenaciously" with ref 79 (Portisch-Tal game) OR? Y Done (changed wording)
• Solvable? How about adding something as discussed in Talk:First_move_advantage_in_chess#Can_it_be_solved Article has more then enough content already. SunCreator (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• In "See also" is it best to use Draw (chess) or Draw? Y Done as it's been removed.
• Further reading is not in alphabetical order as suggest by Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Further_reading Y Done
• Wikipedia linking doesn't seem to like ISBN-10 and ISBN-13, perhaps it should just be ISBN. Applies to some references as well as some future reading books. Y Done SunCreator (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about "+38% =31% −31%" there, and in hundreds of other articles. Bubba73 (talk), 15:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Y Done (as to this article, not the hundreds of others; now we use W38 D31 D31 format, which I (Krakatoa) think is clearer to non-chess players).

Support This article is very well written and nicely referenced. I therefore support upgrading this article to class A. Two minor comments.

• I am not sure I like the statistics table, since it doesn't add very much. Instead perhaps a few other more interesting statistics can be added. I started a threat on the talk page of the article with suggestions. If the table stays, it would be nice to centre it on the page, or even better to have the text left and the table right in that section (like the chessdiagrams below, nicely embedded in the text).
• Currently the article is in the Category:Chess. As the category page says: "It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories". Perhaps it would be nice to create a master category chess theory, where this article would feel very much at home. Subcategories could include Category:Chess tactics, Category:Chess strategy, Category:Chess traps and Category:Chess openings. This would be very much in line with what we have done to all the chess bio categories, we grouped them in one master category Category:Chess biographies.
• For FA, the web links in the reference should be changed, that is, they should mention when the webpage was retrieved (or accessed), for the format see Wikipedia:Embedded_citations Y Done

Voorlandt (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2008

All concerns addressed?

As best I can tell, all the concerns expressed about the article (by Bubba73, SyG, and SunCreator) have now been addressed, and I think to the satisfaction of the proponents of those concerns?

A couple of other random things: (1) I like SunCreator's table (under "Winning Percentages"), but it looks a little funky to me. Is there a way to make the horizontal line for database 1475-2008 go all the way across, and to make all the vertical lines go all the way down? (2) I think the first two words in the article title should be hyphenated: First-move advantage in chess. Anyone else have an opinion on that?

Thanks for all your help with the article! Krakatoa (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I am not sure I understand your comment on the statistics table, as in my browser there is a horizontal line all the way across, but I am using Firefox. Is it because you may be using Internet Explorer ?
2. I agree the current title may be slightly confusing, as someone may think it is about the first "move advantage" that a player gets in chess. I would like to have the opinion of other editors before we change it, though.
3. As you can see above I have changed my assessment from Comment to Approve for A-class. As Bubba73's comments seemed to imply he agreed as well, we just need the following steps:

• get the approval of a third reviewer. Both SunCreator (on this page) and Voorlandt (on the Talk page of the article) have done a review and provided some comments, but none has clearly stated they approved the A-class.
• wait until 3rd May 2008, as the article has been nominated on 12th April and the review needs to last at least three weeks. (frustrating, clearly, but gives enough time to everyone to join in).
• wait one week after the last comment has been made, in order to ensure noone has a last-minute objection to be made.

SyG (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it's A Class. Will look at table display issue in various browsers. SunCreator (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Above, I also said I support the A class. However they are plenty of comments here that can improve the article (see for instance Bubba's comments, and my comment on the refs). A lot of them minor, so they should be easy to fix. Can something be done about the layout of this review? It is very hard to follow as comments are scattered all over the place in no hierarchical structure. Perhaps all comments that are no longer relevant can be removed, and all other comments grouped? Voorlandt (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I approve. The title should probably be "First-move" ... An alternative is "The advantage of the first move in chess", and I don't like that. Bubba73 (talk), 15:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Y Done Hearing no objections, I've moved the article to First-move advantage in chess. Krakatoa (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Class

To me this article seems GA class right now, should it be proposed as GA or should it continue to be improved and go for FA class? SunCreator (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, whatever is decided about A-class, I intend to propose it to the GA nominations. For information, Alexander Alekhine is currently pending there. SyG (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will support it for GA. Is GA considered below A? Bubba73 (talk), 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand it is a bit different, as A-class is defined by each WikiProject, while both FA-class and GA-class have "transversal" processes about reviews (meaning any subject can be proposed). In some WikiProjects the A-class is considered just a corridor before FA-class, in others it can be a definite state. For example Bughouse Chess will have a very hard time to become FA-class because some of the remaining issues (e.g. history) just need sources that do not appear to exist! SyG (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Close out the nomination?

I count four Supports (Bubba73, SyG, SunCreator, and Voorlandt), one more than necessary, and no opposition. It's officially May 3 Wikipedia time, and I believe more than one week since the last comment. Does someone want to close out the nomination? Krakatoa (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see noone opposing to this article being uprated, so I shall close the review and declare this article has successfully passed the A-class review. Well done, and thanks to all for your work! SyG (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Howard Staunton - as good as I can make it right now Philcha (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Assess as GA-class I think the article is now good enough to be presented for a GA-review. SyG (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am really impressed by the quality of this article, the members of the WikiProject Chess seem to improve every day their knowledge of what makes a good article! The article is organised, well referenced and encyclopedic. I think it is close to GA-class, and possibly more with some improvements. Here are my first remarks based on this version of the article. SyG (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

General remarks

Lead

Staunton's life (introduction)

Staunton's life: First steps in chess

Staunton's life: Matches against Saint-Amant

• "He also took Worrall and Harry Wilson to Paris as his assistants" : I think it would be worth to give a bit of background, like "Worrall and Harry Wilson, two strong chess players at the time, ...". Also, please give Worrall's surname.

You mean Worrall's first name? The source ([6]) doesn't give it. Philcha (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In all probability it should be Thomas Herbert Worrall. The fact they were both strong chess players is relevant because it may have given an advantage to Staunton, as Saint-Amant had no second. SyG (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I could find nothing for either of them. Do you have usable sources? Philcha (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not have that many sources. Here are the few I could find on the net for Worrall:

• some games against Morphy and Blackburne: [7]
• he was easily beaten by Morphy in a match in Paris in 1858: [8]
• he was rumored to be a strong Mexican amateur player in [9]

I now have a big doubt as the article talks about "Worrall", but the actual source (Bill Wall) says "Worrell". Would it be possible to clarify ? SyG (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

batgirl says "Worrall", Wall says "Worrell". I googled for "Worrell chess" and got only Wall's pages, clones of Wall, and the Worrell Attack (6 Qe2 in stead of 6 Re1) in the Closed Morphy. I can't see how to resolve this. -- Philcha (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Staunton's life: Chess writer and promoter

• with the games at "Pawn + 1 move" odds, the article states "Staunton lost 6 and won 1", but ref#3 states "Staunton-Harrwitz: 7-0 even, 0-6-1 P+1, 4-3 P+2 (many sources)" which in my understanding means Staunton won none, drew one and lost 6. On the other hand, ref#1 states that Staunton "won 1 to 6 of those at Pawn and move", in line with the article. Which reference is correct ? Or am I misunderstanding somewhere ?

Almost certainly confusion in the sources again. Keeping accurate records did not matter until round-robin tournaments started (AFAIK London 1862). Philcha (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably a problem in the sources. So which one is correct ? If we do not know maybe we should delete the claim from the article ? SyG (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaaargh! The problem is that: IIRC both commentators and Chessmetrics regard this as one of S's strongest performances (note the whitewash at evens); if the article says "Staunton lost almost as heavily at Pawn and move" reviewers and readers will be dissatisfied; I see no reason for preferring either source, as Murray's figures add up but Spinrad names sources and is open when when they conflict (e.g. "what happened here?" about Staunton vs Cochrane); explaining the problem would double the length of the paragraph, IMO without helping the reader. I can see no no good solutions. I suggest the least bad solution is to leave it as-is, since most readers will not check Spinrad's cryptic notes but some will read Murray's articles. OTOH I'd keep the ref to Spinrad's notes so we know there's a problem - hopefully someday some kind author will resolve it. -- Philcha (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Staunton's life: London International Tournament

Staunton's life: Later life

Playing strength and style

• Y Done "The only players on record who were successful against Staunton at evens from 1840 to 1852 were" : here we list Anderssen, Saint-Amant and Williams, but what about Buckle ? Also, what source says these were the only ones ? If there is no source it sounds like original research.

The one referenced at the end of "... but lost the match because he had given Williams a 3 game start." I didn't want to ref the same source twice in 2 consecutive sentences.Philcha (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So I understand it is in Spinrad's notes ? I have a hard time to find it, could you please indicate to me the exact sentence from Spinrad, so that I can look directly for it ? SyG (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Spinrad's notes search for "Staunton" to see the odds (or none) and results. Philcha (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please correct me if I misunderstand, but it seems Spinrad does not say directly that "the only players on record who were successful..." but you deduced it from his records of the match. This could be seen as original research, as Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material which advances a position. Another concern is that Spinrad could have forgotten a match, in which case the conclusion is wrong. I would suggest an introduction like "Based on Spinrad's match records, the only players on record who were successful..." SyG (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right again! It now says, "According to match records collected by Jermey P. Spinrad, the only players who were successful against Staunton at evens ..." -- Philcha (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Personality

Influence on chess

• Talking about the Sicilian defense:

• Y Done not only the Sicilian defense is the most successful reply to 1.e4, but it could also be the most frequent. If we had a source on that, it would add to Staunton's influence.

I'm not sure that logically it would add to Staunton's influence. Sicilian Defence says, "The opening fell out of favor in the latter part of the nineteenth century. This was due in part to the death of its two greatest exponents, Staunton and Anderssen, in 1874 and 1879 respectively ..." So to make a connection we'd need sources saying that the revival of the Sicilian in the early 20th century was largely due to later study of Staunton's games or writings. Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So I understand the Sicilian was popular in Staunton's time thanks to his use of it, and then fell out of flavour once he died, until a revival much later. That in itself is interesting. SyG (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just realised the section was rewritten, with that influence acknowledged. Fine for me. SyG (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten it again to emphasise how complex the question of S's influehnce is and to include some very relevant quotes. -- Philcha (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• did Staunton give reasons why he recommended the Sicilian defense, and if yes are they still valid ?

Staunton wrote, "... this is the best possible reply to 1. P-K4, 'as it renders the formation of a centre impracticable for White and prevents every attack." (The Chess-Player's Handbook. George Bell & Sons, p.371.) Is that still valid? I don't know as I'm hopelessly out of date on theory. Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, the reality is just the opposite: there is an incredibly various lot of attacks against the Sicilian (much more than against, say, the Caro-Kann). Maybe that means the Sicilian helped to avoid the type of attacks that was popular in those times (attack with pieces), while latter other types of attack were discovered. But here I am going into original research. SyG (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I found and included a killer quote from Nunn. Thanks for "encouraging" me to look for it! -- Philcha (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest to place the third paragraph before the second, as the third is more general and a good conclusion for the section.

On the other hand the 1st 2 paras are about his writings (1st on theory, 2nd on English chess) and the 3rd about the effects of the 1851 tournament. Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand better now. Looking at the new version of this section, I would like to suggest to place the paragraphs about openings (Sicilian, English, Staunton's gambit) in the first place, so that the article goes from the specific to the general. The current first paragraph (about his writings) would then become the last one, in order to end with his obituary. SyG (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I never wanted to include so much detail about S's openings as my impression was that they had little direction influence on 20th century play. The additional material IMO confirms that impression, e.g. de Firmian in MCO says the English "is really a twentieth century invention". Ponziani's is a museum piece; I don't know if anyone uses the Staunton Gambit against the Dutch. S's comments about the Sicilian do not apply to modern play.

My own inclination would be to move the last paragraph (1851 tournament) to 2nd place, so paras 1 and 2 cover his genuine historical impact. Then the rest deals with his less enduring contributions to theory and to chess playing style. Philcha (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that there's so much about the influence (or not) of his openings and style, I prefer to leave the 1851 tournament as the last para. -- Philcha (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable games

• This could sound pointy, but I would give a quote for each game to explain this game has been considered as notable in a given book. That way the notability of these games is proved.

I don't remember seeing this done before, e.g. Alexander Alekhine is now a GA but does not have such citations. And to be honest, I am not in a position to provide them. I simply went through chessgames.com looking for games that were fairly interesting, against strong players, and played at evens (that last criterion is quite narrow, as Staunotn gave odds to several masters). Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your method of selection, or even the fact that you have selected the games yourself, sounds extremely close to WP:OR to me, even if I fully agree most chess articles do that. SyG (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any "Staunton's Best Games" collection. Staunton used his own games in his articles, but quite possibly so many that we would still have a problem about which to select. [12] lists some "Notable games" (selected by whom?), which includes some but not all of the games I selected - but I find some of chessgames.com's selections less impressive. Chessgames is the only relevant hit I got by googling for "staunton best notable games". Philcha (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• The section only gives brilliancies (and only victories) from Staunton, that does not seem neutral.

AFAIK that's normal practice. I know of no other Wikipedia chessplayer articles that give any of the subjects' losses, or even their most heroic draws. I'm not sure I'd describe the Staunton games as "brilliancies". In fact based on the games I've seen at chessgames.com I'd describe Staunton as an "efficient" player rather than a "brilliant" one - I've seen nothing to compare with the most spectacular games of Anderssen, Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik (I'm thinking of Botvinnik vs Portisch 1968) or dozens of others. Philcha (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As you point out, my word "brilliancies" is not the right one. I still think giving only victories from Staunton does not reflect the definition of "Notable games". Some games can be notable even if they resulted in a draw or a loss. I agree with you this is the same in all other chessplayer articles, and that may explain why there is zero such articles that have gone to FA-class. SyG (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that adding historically notable losses or draws would make some "Notable games" sections very bulky. For example we would have to include: under Alekhine a lot of Euwe's wins from the 2nd half of the 1935 match, when Euwe came from behind to win the title; under Euwe a lot of Alekhine's wins from the 2nd half of the 1937 match, when the balance of the match swung completely in Alekhine favour; under Capablanca at least half his 6 losses to Alekhine in 1927; and god help us when we get to Botvinnik, who lost world championship matches against Smyslov, Tal and Petrosian!

I think if a GA / FA reviewer complains about about the inclusion only of wins, we can say it's normal practice and point to books organised as a series of articles about players, e.g. Fine's World's Great Chess Games. Philcha (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thinking of it again, I think the whole section is just original research, both in the choice of the games and in the commentaries provided. The only way I see to avoid original research in a section like this is to list only games that have been selected as notable by authoritative sources (e.g. in books), and give only descriptions coming from those authoritative sources. Probably the current state of the article would go through a GA-review without too much trouble, but that is not suitable for a FA-class. SyG (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above. If there are no suitable books, we ask the hypothetical FA reviewer whether he / she would prefer the "Notable games" section to be deleted. N.B. in this context Fine's World's Great Chess Games is IMO not a suitable source, as he selects only 1 of Staunton's games then mocks the play of both sides - Fine shares the American prejudice against S because of the Morphy affair. Philcha (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tournament results

Match results

Wow, you're working your socks off! What's the French for that? Thanks for giving it so much care and attention. Philcha (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I usually have much less to say. But also my reviews tend to be longer when the article is already grown up. SyG (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree with SyG; without pre-judging the outcome of any review, the article is already impressive and his extensive comments will certainly help. And while there may be more material that could be included in the article, the present version seems to cover all of the important points very competently. Consequently, I will restrict my comments to just a few suggestions:-

• The Staunton Memorial Tournament, held every year in London since 2003 appears to have some permanency these days and I think deserves a mention here. For instance, the forthcoming 2008 (6th) edition is being described as probably the strongest tournament held in the UK since London 1986. Additionally, the event organisers are claiming a chess record this year, with IM Bob Wade set to become the oldest player to take part in a grandmaster tournament. Of course the tournament (also doubling as an England vs Netherlands match) has Ray Keene as its main organiser and evolved from the work of the Staunton Society, created in 1993 (also worth more prominence in the article?). Not quite sure where this material would best fit - a new Legacy section/sub-section?

I think your're right, a new Legacy section/sub-section is the right place. What's the best WP:RS for the tournament as a regular event (date 1st held, etc.) and for "strongest tournament held in the UK since London 1986"?

That apart, how much is there to say about the Staunton Society? Would an item in "External links" be sufficient? Philcha (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Society, Memorial (each separate edition) and Simpson's Divan all have fairly comprehensive links from [13], so I don't think other sources are generally necessary. I agree, there's not much more can be said about the Society, other than dates, founder members etc. The previously neglected grave is already in the article and I recall this was the driving force behind the Society's formation, so that point could also be made.

The claims for the 6th edition are given at [14] - which seems a good enough source. Nice article here also on the first edition - [15].

Many thanks! Done, hope you like the result. NB the book sales web sites date the Fontana edition 1975, so I've used 1975.

BTW it's a separate top-level section as I didn't think it fitted naturally under the title "Assessment". The older common section title "Legacy" would have accomodated it more naturally, bu not some of the comments on e.g. playing style and personality. If anyone can think of a major section heading that fits all these types of content, go for it. Philcha (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• One point made in the Keene Spectator article (and in other texts - e.g. The Kings of Chess - Hartston, Grandmasters of Chess - Schonberg) is Staunton's frequent attendance of The Divan in The Strand (often referred to as Simpson's Divan, after the head waiter who later became the proprietor), nowadays Simpson's in the Strand. Indeed, Schonberg goes as far as to say that during the fifteen years that Staunton was the best player in Europe, he could mostly be found at the Divan. Although he was also known to frequent the St. George Chess Club in Cavendish Square, I think the point about Simpson's would be well made, particularly as it emphasises the long association between Staunton and the Divan (i.e. it is the venue for the annual Memorial Tournament and I believe has a display case containing Staunton memorabilia).

Re the ref, is that Grandmasters of Chess by Harold Schonberg, (Lippincott, 1973. ISBN 0-397-01004-4)? Can you provide a page number (see comments above)?

Mine is the Fontana (1974) edition of Schonberg's Grandmasters of Chess. (Apologies, can't find an ISBN no. but pp.37-46 'The Age of Staunton' are the relevant pages).

"fifteen years that Staunton was the best player in Europe"? The evidence I've seen supports no more than 8. If Schonberg says 15, he's wrong: from 1851 Anderssen reigned, apart from the short reign of Morphy; and 1851 minus 15 = 1836, when Staunton moved to London and said the good players could give him rook odds.

Schonberg's 'fifteen years' confused me too. It seems to be based on the popular view of the time. As Hartston writes (p.35 The King Of Chess, Pavilion 1986). … "By the end of 1853, Staunton had in effect retired completely from match and tournament play, but it was only his evasion of a match with the young American, Paul Morphy, in 1858, which finally brought home to the majority of the chess-playing public that Staunton was no longer King." In fairness, Schonberg says about fifteen years, so he is also allowing for some small unspecified period during which Anderssen could have been considered the better player.

Re the Divan, at present (without seeing how it would look on the page), I'm inclined to build that into the bit about the Staunton Memorial Tournament. What do you think?

Re his freqenting mainly the Divan, during which period? The sources make it clear that the management of the 1851 tournament was dominated by the St. George Chess Club, and that this was why the London Chess Club played no part and organised a rival tournament. Philcha (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither Schonberg nor Hartston amplifies on periods that he favoured one club over the other. Schonberg says mostly the Divan (p.37). Hartston says he was strongly linked with both clubs (p.33). Yes, I agree, including mention of The Divan in association with the Memorial seems a reasonable point to insert it.

I've included the Divan "which Staunton regularly visited in the 19th century to play and discuss chess", staying neutral about which was his favourite haunt.

I think Schonberg's "fifteen years" part is a mess and best avoided. But thanks for all the info. Philcha (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the worth (or academic opinion) of Staunton's Shakespearean works, I would agree that a modern perspective/critique may be useful. However, I think it may be equally valuable to give a quote from the 1909 Dictionary of National Biography … for example "Staunton's text was based on a collation of the folio editions with the early quartos and with the texts of modern editors from Rowe [1709] to Dyce [1857]. The conjectural emendations, which were usually sensible, were kept within narrow limits, and showed much familiarity with Elizabethan literature and modes of speech. The general notes combined common-sense with exhaustive research" (DNB, 1004)". Reference - [16]

The ref used ([17]) quotes the DNB, though it does not say which edition. Philcha (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Whether it is encyclopedic or not is perhaps debatable, but other authors give the 'poignant' observation that Staunton died on Morphy's birthday. Worth including?

I'd think not. If there's a 50% chance that at least 2 in a randomly selected group of 25 people share a birthday, I imagine the same works for deaths. Philcha (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I completely follow that one. Isn't the probability of dying on someone's birthday 1 in 365 or thereabouts? Statistics were never my strong point though!

Never did the maths myself, but the point about "50% chance that at least 2 ..." is: it's a group of 25; you don't specify the date, it's enough that 2 or more were born on the same day. Relating that to the real subject, I'm a suggesting that if you picked 25 random Wikipedia bios of dead people, there's a 50% chance that 2 died on the same day, i.e. "died on the same day (of different years)" is not that big a deal. Philcha (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Philcha (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See birthday paradox; if you have 23 or more randomly seleted people, the odds are that two will have the same birthday exceeds 50%. At 30 and above, the likelihood goes up quickly. Krakatoa (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Y DoneFinally, there is a typo in reference 9. - £7,7000?

Just checked it, seems OK. Advances in technology and business practices have raised productivity enormously in the last 150 years, so real incomes have outstripped real prices by a factor of almost 10. Philcha (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the typo in ref. 9, I was simply querying whether there was one zero too many or the comma was in the wrong place! - £7,7000 ;-)

you're right, I need to have my eyes tested. Should be 7,700 - fixed. Thanks for sparing mny blushes! Philcha (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, one further point in passing - a useful supplementary quote for the 'Playing Strength and Style' section is Bobby Fischer's description of Staunton as "The most profound opening analyst of all time" (TKOC p.33 - also given by Schonberg). Brittle heaven (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I've omitted Fischer's comments about Staunton because Fischer never grew out of being a provocative teenager, so it's hard to tell when he was serious and when he was playing games with journalists and readers. In this case Fischer could not have foreseen Kasparov at the time but would have known about Botvinnik, Bronstein and other top Soviet analysts. Philcha (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Regards, Brittle heaven (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Philcha (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose 'A' Class I believe that the article in it's present form achieves 'GA' Class, but not 'A' Class. In it's scope, content and presentation it very much resembles the Alexander Alekhine article, which is also of 'GA' status. There are probably two distinct areas that I think currently hold it back from a more lofty classification;

Staunton's strength. This may be controversial, but I'm really not happy with the way the article handles his chess playing stature; re-checking every competent source in my own library (Golombek, Sunnucks, Hooper & Whyld, Schonberg, Brace and Hartston) each and every one contends that Staunton was (or is generally regarded) the strongest player of his time. I have not read Keene and Coles' lengthy biography Howard Staunton:The English World Chess Champion, but from the title, I'm guessing it arrives at much the same conclusion. So why does this article undersell him as " … probably one of the world's two or three strongest players …" and " … the strongest British player with the possible exception of Buckle …"? Later, there is some (begrudging?) concession that some people hail Staunton as the strongest player, but are we really saying that the Spinrad article takes preference over all the other collected opinions? As much as I think that Spinrad's opinions are well researched and worthy of reproduction, they are still just opinions and I would personally reverse the emphasis in the lead (and elsewhere), giving what I believe to be the overwhelmingly popular view, much greater prominence.

This arose from two main factors: some of S's contemporaries thought Buckle and von der Lasa were about as strong; I changed it from one of the best two ..." (von der Lasa the opther) to accommodate the views of another reviewer. Since Buckle and von der Lasa did not participate in prolonged contests it's impossible ot resolve objectively. Philcha (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that some of his contemporaries rate Buckle and von der Lasa as being of comparable strength and I'm very comfortable with it in the article, but as you state yourself, it's an impossible conflict to resolve objectively and so we'll never know the truth. Consequently, I am contending that the collective view of expert writers has to be the prominent lead, or the article could be seen as promoting a minority POV.

There is no single collective view, because Staunton was so controversial. I don't particularly want to see the article become a shouting match between: in the blue corner, Morphy, Fischer, Kasparov and Hartston (who is pro-Staunton on play but anti- on personality); in the red corner, Fine, Horowitz and Reinfeld.

The sad truth is that many writers who are normally WP:RS cease to be reliable because of the strong feelings aroused by the Staunton-Morphy affair - Fine, Horowitz and Reinfeld are the most striking cases. OTOH I'd take Morphy's word because he was complimentary despite the 1858 dispute, and Kasparov's because he does not belong to one of the nationalities involved, learned objectivity from Botvinnik and did a lot of his own research to find old ideas he could re-use (like the Scotch Game).

The biggest problem of all is that most modern assessments do not explain themselves, cite sources, etc. That leaves open a worry that we might wind up quoting as a collective view opinions that can be traced back to just one source — as has happened with the history of the Staunton-Morphy controversy. -- Philcha (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is too frustrating and I've no idea where it's going. I don't think for one minute that the collective view might all be traced back to one source; I think the various authors I mention above have more credibility than that. But rather than repeat my suggested approach 'ad nauseam', I'll now take a back seat on this one and wish you good luck ... and stop expanding the intro ... it's already too big! Brittle heaven (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Style. While some style issues can be tolerated within an 'A' Class article I feel that this one is too far away from a good style to be deemed satisfactory.

• First take a look at the article Petrarch (a MOS good example) and see how the lead section very briefly outlines the person's basic details, what they did and why they are significant - it is brief and succinct. Now contrast the Staunton lead - in comparison it rambles on and on, gives too much detail by trying to encompass every facet of his life with all of the relevant dates and then delves into his personality traits just for good measure. It is almost as long as some of the articles we would rate as 'B' Class and rather than pulling me into the article proper, it actually made me feel that I'd got enough of an overview that I didn't need to read on.

AFAIK leads are supposed to summarise the article. Staunton had a lot of irons in the fire and was controversial in his own time and now. Evolution is a FA and has a considerably longer lead. If you can spare the time time I'd be happy to discuss with you how the lead might be slimmed down without omitting important points.

I'm not sure you can compare an article like 'Evolution' with a bio, but you make a fair point. It is meant to be an overview, a stand-alone summary and this may well mean it has to be longer than the MOS example that I picked out. To take more relevant examples, I scoured the bios of other colourful, high achieving British characters and would say that some of the best written leads range from Oscar Wilde at the shorter end of the scale, to Winston Churchill at the longer, with say, George Best and Geoffrey Boycott somewhere in between. Does this help? It's not such a big deal, just taking out some of the detail "without omitting important points", as you rightly say. I'll be glad to help, if needed.

I like the fact that Winston Churchill's lead is so true blue! Oscar Wilde is not such a good example, as the article has problems at the moment.

I'll keep looking for ways to slim down the lead without sacrificing important points, and help with that would be welcome. -- Philcha (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• In the "Influence on chess" section, almost every paragraph starts with the word Staunton - this really doesn't read well, giving the section all the grammatical character of a 'list' format … Staunton did this, Staunton did that, Staunton did the other … moreover, I found the constant repeating of the subject's name a bit tiresome throughout the article.

I'll have look at that once the content is stable. Philcha (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that in most of the paragraphs Staunton is the subject of the 1st sentence but some aspect of modern play is the subject of the last, so "He" is not usually a good beginning for the next para. -- Philcha (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• For most of the later sections, there seems to be an increasing reliance on piling up facts and quotes from various experts and commentators (a symptom of edit war skirmishes?). Whatever the reason, this can leave the reader a bit punch-drunk and stops the article from flowing—some prose to summarise and fill out the less contentious statements would make it a less chore-like read. Conversely, the more selective use of quotes and references for only the most controversial issues would, I think, make for a more pleasurable reading experience. With Staunton's high level of achievement in so many fields, not to mention his complex and colourful personality, I feel that the aim should be to give even the non-chess playing reader an interesting and engaging article. In my opinion, it's not quite there yet.

Your comment about "edit war" seems appropriate. You might like to compare the version of 11:55, 27 June 2008 (18:44, 28 June 2008) with the version of 08:48, 29 June 2008 and check the diffs - and then a discussion further down this page. Philcha (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some earlier versions were better to read and I think we need to get the prose and flow back there somehow.

What do you think of the idea of creating a separate article "The Staunton-Morphy controversy", as I have suggested elsewhere? I think Howard Staunton references just about enough material to justify a separate article, which might then, if we're lucky with sources, develop into a solid blow-by-blow account. That would allow Howard Staunton to summarise the more detailed article. I'd still want the summary to be the first sub-section of "Assessment", in order to clear the air. -- Philcha (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I hope that this doesn't seem too harsh. I still consider that the article is very good and well researched—a credit to the hard work that has gone into it. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments. Philcha (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment A few remarks: the article claims that The Chess-Player's Handbook did not go out of print until 1993. That seems improbable. I have three copies of the book, which were printed in 1888, 1890, and 1893; one does not see versions for sale on eBay that were printed later than the 1890s, or maybe the 1900s. There might be a Hardinge Simpole version of the book or something many decades after that, but I would be surprised if the book were continuously in print until 1993.

I've changed the text to "which was still in print in 1993", which avoids any implication that it was continuously in print. Thanks!

The new wording also avoids the issue of when it was most recently in print. I've seen book sales sites that give e.g. 2003, but I'm not sure how reliable they are. If you see a later date than 1993 that you consider reliable, please edit it in. Philcha (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the Internet user "batgirl" really an authoritative source?!

For which points? In some cases she quotes chunks of articles, and a few cases whole articles (Murray in BCM; Walker in Chess Player's Chronicle 1844). If there were a conflict between batgirl and Winter's Chess Notes I'd go with Winter, but otherwise batgirl is the same kind of source. Philcha (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I earlier added Fischer's assessment of Staunton as being in the top 10 players of all time, and his explanation thereof, from the January-February 1964 issue of Chessworld magazine. I see from the above comments that Philcha deleted that, apparently considering batgirl a more authoritative source than Fischer, generally agreed to be one of the two strongest players in the history of the world. The mind boggles. Krakatoa (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read lots of Fischer interviews, mainly in Chess, and know his love of being provocative. American writers of the time show a strong prejudice against Staunton (Mark Weeks said this; Fine and Horowitz are good examples), and it would be quite in character for Fischer to tweak their tails. AFAIK "one of the ten greatest players in history" put Fischer in a minority of one when he said it, and more recent research (cited) suggests von der Lasa was roughly on a par with Staunton. "Playing over his games, I discover that they are completely modern" needs a lot of explaining. "most profound opening analyst of all time" begs comparisons with Alekhine (tons of Alekhine variations) and Botvinnik (who created whole systems, not just variations), to name only 2. If Fischer had said e.g. "most innovative" or "most original", I think that would have been be consistent with the facts as presented by other sources. One of the difficulties with Fischer is that his command of English was below par because of his attitude to schools ("I don't take lessons from weakies" in an interview in Chess while he was still a teenager). Did the interviewer ask Fischer to explain these comments any further? If so, that might help to clarify the issue.

You are free to think Fischer's assessment is superficial, provocative, or whatever you want. He is nonetheless a chess player and writer of enormous stature. The article is titled "The Ten Greatest Masters in History" by Bobby Fischer, as told to Neil Hickey." The section on each of the 10 players has 4-6 paragraphs explaining Fischer's reasons for the inclusion of each. It is not an interview. Krakatoa (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, here is the whole Fischer piece on Staunton. It appears to be written in literate English:

Staunton was the most profound opening analyst of all time. He was more theorist than player, but nonetheless he was the strongest player of his day. Playing over his games, I discover that they were completely modern; where Morphy and Steinitz rejected the fianchetto, he embraced it. In addition, he understood all of the positional concepts which modern players hold so dear, and thus--with Steinitz--must be considered the first modern player.

Besides his standardization of the chess set, Staunton's fame rests with the four important textbooks he wrote: the "Handbook," "The Chess Companion," "The Chess Tournament," and "Chess Praxis."

Staunton appears to have been afraid to meet Paul Morphy, and I think his fears were well-founded. Morphy would have beaten him, but it wouldn't have been the one-sided encounter that many writers now think it would. It would have been a great struggle.

Staunton often didn't beat weaker players as easily as his contemporaries did, and very few of his games show brilliancies. But when Staunton fianchettoed his King Bishop on the Black side of a closed Sicilian Defense his opponents had no conception of what he was doing and consequently, were generally wiped off the board. These were not just "fish" but the best players of his day. Staunton's right to be on a list of the ten greatest players of all time is firmly founded in the profundity of his insights, especially in the opening, and the great wealth of book knowledge that was his. Krakatoa (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you identified the batgirl ref that bothers you. If it's the English Opening, I've added Murray. If it's Morphy's assessment, the ref is to the book, and I added the url as a help to readers, most of whom won't have the book. Philcha (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph that I wrote about Fischer's assessment read as follows:

Future World Champion Bobby Fischer, today generally regarded as one of the greatest players in history, wrote in a 1964 article that Staunton was one of the ten greatest players in history. Fischer explained, "Staunton was the most profound opening analyst of all time. He was more theorist than player, but nonetheless he was the strongest player of his day. Playing over his games, I discover that they are completely modern; where Morphy and Steinitz rejected the fianchetto, Staunton embraced it. In addition, he understood all of the positional concepts which modern players hold dear, and thus-with Steinitz-must be considered the first modern player."^[4]

It seems to me that the manner in which Philcha deleted this paragraph was rather irregular, to say the least. The paragraph was last included in this version. Philcha deleted it (May 23, 2008 20:02), "explaining" in the revision history "(intro (almost done))". That is not enlightening, nor did Philcha put anything on the article's talk page about this omission.

I am going to re-add this paragraph to the article. The Fischer article was published in 1964, by which time Fischer was already one of the strongest players of all time and a serious candidate for the world championship. Although Philcha does not think much of the article, it is significant enough to have been cited by Kasparov, for example. My Great Predecessors, Part IV, p. 87 (quoting Fischer's "splendid tribute" to Reshevsky in that article). Krakatoa (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Which parts of the Fischer interview did Kasparov cite in MGP? Did any of them mention Staunton and, if so, what did Kasparov say about this? Philcha (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not gone through all five volumes (about 2200 pages) of MGP to find every mention of Fischer's article. As I said above, the part I previously cited was about Reshevsky. In MGP, Part I, p. 21, Kasparov after discussing Staunton's match victories over Horwitz and Harrwitz, wrote "Despite this, Staunton was not properly recognised by either his contemporaries, or chess historians. But in 1964 Fischer included him in his ten best masters of all time, declaring: [K now quotes verbatim the exact language I quoted about Staunton from Fischer's article]". Krakatoa (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I still think Fischer's choice of words was over-the-top, but if Kasparov cites it with approval, ... Philcha (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I still find "one of the ten greatest players in history" hard to swallow, despite having edited into Howard Staunton a lot more positive content than it previously had. How about:

Future World Champion Bobby Fischer, today generally regarded as one of the greatest players in history, wrote in a 1964 article that Staunton was one of the ten greatest players in history. Fischer explained, "Staunton was the most profound opening analyst of all time ...." Philcha (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fischer's statement struck me as surprising when I first read it, and it still strikes me as a bit surprising. However, my opinion, and yours, don't matter. See WP:NPOV, WP:RS. Fischer is commonly regarded today as one of the very greatest players in history. See, e.g., Hans Böhm and Kees Jongkind, Bobby Fischer: The Wandering King, p. 134 (IM Böhm, concluding his discussion of "Who is the Best Chess Player of all Time"?: "I am asking you to consider placing, in any case, Fischer and Kasparov in the top three".). Fischer is also commonly regarded as one of the greatest chess writers in history; recall the widespread praise for My 60 Memorable Games. This great chess player and writer wrote in 1964 that Staunton was (as of 1964) one of the 10 greatest players of all time. Kasparov, also commonly regarded as one of the very greatest chess players and writers in history, noted that Fischer had pronounced Staunton one of the 10 best and quoted the same explanatory paragraph I quoted. He didn't say "Fischer was nuts", "Fischer was just saying this to be provocative", "My judgment is to the contrary", or anything else derogatory about Fischer's opinion. Rather, Kasparov wrote, immediately before citing Fischer's opinion, that "Staunton was not properly recognised by either his contemporaries, or chess historians". In light of all that, I think the paragraph should stay as I wrote it. Whether you or I think it's over the top is irrelevant: unlike Fischer and Kasparov, we have no stature as chess authorities. Krakatoa (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Staunton's combative writing

Winter (CN 4276: Rude and CN 4337: A chess Watergate) provides examples of acerbic comments by other writers of the time. Should I add a note about this to the comments about Staunton's chess writing style, e.g. "However his contemporaries could also be quite belligerent" (with these citations)? Philcha (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Another of Winter's articles provides many examples of Attacks on Howard Staunton. Philcha (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Influence on chess

Krakatoa edited in the history of the Sicilian from Staunton's time to about 1900, which is fine. But after pointing out that the Sicilian almost vanished after the deaths of Staunton and Anderssen, the current version of the paragraph abruptly ends with "The Sicilian is today the most popular chess opening and the most successful response to 1.e4". Right now I can see 3 ways to deal with this:

• Explain how the Sicilian rose from the grave. It would be particularly nice if anyone could show that study of Staunton's games or writings had anything to do with this.
• Delete the final sentence.
• Convert the final sentence to a subordinate clause of the 1st, which would then read, "Staunton was one of the earliest champions of the Sicilian Defense, which is now the most popular chess opening and the most successful response to 1.e4.^[5]

Any suggestions? Philcha (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I think your idea "Convert the final sentence to a subordinate clause of the 1st" is the best, and will rewrite it that way. I think the Sicilian Defence article suggests, correctly, that the Sicilian's renascence in the 20th century was more the result of the influence of its many 20th-century exponents than people rediscovering Staunton's ideas or anything like that. Krakatoa (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, that would be my preference too - I included option "Delete the final sentence" only for completeness. Thanks. Philcha (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Krakatoa has done a lot more than clarify the bit about the Sicilian. He has edited into the "Influence" section every attack on Staunton he could find. The placement of this content in the "Influence section evades the counter-balancing points made in the "Assessment" section, and is irrelevant to the question of Staunton's influence. No doubt Krakatoa will argue that sources are sources. OK, try Site review - Online book catalogs (III; Howard Staunton) by Mark Weeks. Philcha (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I can find a lot more attacks on Staunton if I want to, believe me. The received wisdom during my chess childhood (the 70s) was that he was the scum of the earth, and there's no shortage of published sources saying that. What I put in the article only scratches the surface. I really have no ax to grind on Staunton. As you'll recall, I put in - and you deleted without mentioning that you were doing so - Fischer's laudatory discussion of Steinitz (top ten in history, games are thoroughly modern, he and Steinitz founded modern chess, yada yada yada). I've now reinserted both that discussion and Kasparov's praise of Staunton. Moreover, even some of the sources critical of Staunton I've mentioned are not outright condemnations, e.g. Hartston and Saidy/Lessing. I don't think one can have a balanced article about Staunton without acknowledging that there are lots of significant chess writers who despise the man. Krakatoa (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

On looking at the whole "Influence on Chess" section, it seems to me that the last two paragraphs, which I wrote, kind of overwhelm the rest of the section, since they're longer than the other paragraphs and they conclude the section. If you want to move some of that stuff to the "Personality" section, or put more of the detail in references rather than text, or put it in a separate section or subsection, that's OK with me. Krakatoa (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you should clear it up in a way that does not mess up the structure of the article.

In any kind of serious controversy your policy that a source is a source is a source breaks down. I have some idea of where the most hostile accounts originate from. See also Taylor Kingston's comment "Probably the biggest surprise was learning how carelessly the game’s history was handled by the writers I took as gospel in my youth, particularly Reinfeld, Horowitz, Fine and Evans; also Chernev to a lesser extent. The work of serious, more scholarly historians: Edward Winter, Jeremy Gaige, Ken Whyld, Bernard Cafferty and a few others, came as a revelation, inspiring me to be more careful and discerning in my own work." That's consistent with Mark Weeks' comments that I referred to above. Philcha (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the two paragraphs about Staunton (condemnatory and laudatory, respectively) to a separate section entitled "Modern Reputation."

I never said "a source is a source is a source"; that is your invention. I have said that I respect Fischer's opinion of Staunton's stature, and that Fischer is a chess player and writer of great stature. I also said that the same is true of Kasparov (who quoted the same paragraph Fischer wrote about Staunton that I had quoted in the article, and that you deleted without comment or discussion). You apparently do not dispute my view of Kasparov's stature, at least. Please don't make up things that I never said. Krakatoa (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I don't understand the first sentence in the article: "Howard Staunton (April 1810 – June 22, 1874) was an English chess master who was probably one of the world's two strongest players from 1843 to 1851." Why "probably one of the world's two strongest?" Maybe I am missing something, but as far as I can see this doesn't tie into anything in the rest of the article. The article says, for example, that some people (mostly Englishmen) hailed S as world champion; other Europeans were less enthusiastic about that idea; even some Englishmen thought S wasn't the best, preferring someone else, notably Buckle or von der Lasa (note that if both Buckle and von der Lasa were better than S, than would make him No. 3); Chessmetrics ranks S No. 1 in the world 1843-49 (I'm leaving off the months) and in the top 10 from 1851 on (Chessmetrics apparently doesn't address 1849-51? This also wouldn't support saying "top 2 from 1843-51", seemingly.); and Elo said that except for Morphy (whose playing career began well after 1851) S scored best against other top players in 1846-62 (this would support "No. 1 in 1843-51", not "top 2"). Someone should either explain why this sentence is consistent with the rest of the article, or revise it. Krakatoa (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

First, we're talking about the lead, which is supposed to be a summary, so it can't cover all the details.

Y Done Re "how many world number ones", it's genuinely difficult because both Buckle and von der Lasa played only a few games at a time, and neither played a full-scale match - Buckle because of his frail health (IIRC Bird's Reminiscences mentions that somewhere in its vast ramblings), von der Lasa because of his commitments as a civil servant / diplomat. I would not mind if the lead said "one of the world's two or three strongest players from 1843 to 1851". That would entail mentioning Buckle in the main text, but it should include the fact the Buckle avoided serious matches because of his health.

Until the 1860s formal chess competitions were very rare, and it was hard to distinguish between odds/even games and between informal games played close together and serious matches (Staunton-Cochrane is a good example). These factors make statistical systems only rough guides for this period - for example Chessmetric's ranking charts show a lot of volatility. I think it's important to avoid spurious precision. That's why the lead says "probably one of ...".

I don't have the Elo rankings, but am surprised it says S scored best against other top players in 1846-62, as every other indication is that from 1851 onwards Anderssen was stronger than Staunton, and Morphy was in a class of his own. Can you explain a little about how Elo did his calculations for this period? I'd like to avoid the risk of relying on what might be a statistical artifact - for example, if Elo found so few serious games in the mid-19th century that he was concerned about the small sample size, he might have put all games 1846-1862 in one "bucket", and that would disguise Morphy's absolute dominance in 1858 and weaken Anderssens's score, as sources say he improved a lot shortly before London 1851. Philcha (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I will give full details later (no time at the moment), but Elo listed all the leading players in that time period, and constructed a "crosstable" of all results between them. Morphy of course had by far the highest proportion, but Staunton was second (.591, as I recall), as I recall a good deal ahead of Harrwitz (.543 or something), who was third. Not sure why Anderssen wasn't higher; that is a little surprising. Krakatoa (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I really must learn to read. What I said above is correct as far as it goes, but I didn't read far enough. In section 3.43 in Elo's book (Arpad E. Elo, The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present, Arco Publishing, 1978, p. 55, ISBN 0-668-04721-6), which is what I alluded to above, Elo does indeed construct a quasi-crosstable of results among the top nine players, using as his data "342 games, all the match, tournament, and exhibition encounters of record for these players between 1846 and 1862." Morphy scored .726, Staunton .591, Harrwitz .542, Anderssen .513, Kolisch .500, Lowenthal .474, Paulsen .447, Williams .399, Horwitz .378. That's what I cited in the article. Unfortunately, until today I had never turned the page! D'oh! In sections 3.44 to 3.46 (p. 56), I now learn that Elo assigned all the players an arbitrary starting "rating" of 500 just for purposes of calculation. He then used the proportions I have just given to approximate the players' relative ratings (i.e. Morphy's "rating" becomes much higher than 500, Horwitz' considerably lower, etc.) Elo then used successive approximations (i.e. he substituted the new differentiated ratings for the original 500 for everyone, then recalculated), and did this multiple times until he got pretty stable "ratings" for the whole group. He says 2000 should be added to those numbers to get approximations of modern Elo ratings. Doing so, we get Morphy 2695, Anderssen 2552, Harrwitz 2518, Kolisch 2516, Staunton 2508, Lowenthal 2505, Paulsen 2502, Williams 2425, Horwitz 2406. So as you had expected Morphy is first by a mile, Anderssen is second, and everyone else is well behind him. This "method of successive approximations" is the same one that Elo used to establish the first international rating list (p. 56).

Of course, the reason Staunton's proportion was second to Morphy's, and Anderssen's so lackluster, is that Anderssen played 17 games against Morphy, scoring 4-13, while Staunton achieved a 0-0 score against Morphy. The proportions that I quote in the article are thus completely misleading. In the last table in his book (section 9.5, pp. 191-96), Elo gives the "best 5-year averages" that he has calculated for "Untitled Chessmasters" (i.e. the average Elo rating a player achieved in his best 5 years). For the same group of players, these are Morphy 2690 (covers period of active play, of less than five years), Anderssen 2600, Kolisch 2570, Paulsen 2550, Staunton 2520, Harrwitz 2520, Lowenthal 2510, Williams 2450 (for less than five-year period of active play) Horwitz 2420. Incidentally, he also gives Buckle 2480 (again covering sub-5-year period of active play), and has no entry for von der Lasa (not enough data, I'm guessing). Unfortunately, Elo doesn't tell us what the peak 5 years were for each player. Kolisch lived 1837-89 and Paulsen 1833-91, so no doubt their peaks came long after Staunton's.

Unfortunately, since none of Elo's statistics are broken down by years with the particularity we would like (i.e. what was the rank of the top players in 1843-51, etc.), I'm not sure if any of this is useful for the article. I'm going to remove the Elo statistics I gave in the article. If anyone can figure out how to use in the article the statistics I've given here, be my guest. I apologize for my lack of reading comprehension.

Returning to the initial subject - what to say in the first sentence - there are various choices:

1. Howard Staunton (April 1810 – June 22, 1874) was an English chess master who was probably one of the world's two or three strongest players from 1843 to 1851.

2. Howard Staunton (April 1810 – June 22, 1874) was an English chess master whom many considered the strongest player in the world from 1843 to 1851.

3. Howard Staunton (April 1810 – June 22, 1874) was an English chess master who was arguably the strongest player in the world from 1843 to 1851.

My inclination would be to go with 2 or 3, or something along those lines. Based on what Elo wrote (I haven't looked at Chessmetrics), Buckle's and von der Lasa's claims seem shaky at best. If one is "the strongest player in the world" but doesn't play, at some point it becomes unreasonable to keep calling one "the best player in the world" (see Bobby Fischer, Paul Morphy). Calling them that is almost as silly as saying "Harry Nelson Pillsbury and Rudolf Charousek were the best players in the world in 1910, except for the fact that they were both dead." Krakatoa (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"two or three strongest players from 1843 to 1851" Philcha (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul Morphy

The article covers the Staunton-Morphy controversy in the most bland and Staunton-favorable manner imaginable. The text (including that accompanying the picture of Paul Morphy) is flagrantly POV. It also cites H.J.R. Murray as though he were the only person who had ever written on the subject, and treats what Murray says as the final (and only) word. Here is a timeline I have constructed from the Internet source "batgirl," who is cited (except on this subject!) throughout the article. (Everything on batgirl's website regarding Staunton and Morphy appears to be copied, without attribution, from print sources.) All dates are in 1858:

June 23: Morphy, following his arrival in England, meets Staunton and inquires about match. Staunton agrees but asks for a month to brush up on his openings. Morphy agrees. Thereafter, Morphy and Barnes play two consultation games against Staunton and Owen at Staunton's country home, winning 2-0. [18]

Early July – Staunton asks for more time, specifically until after the Birmingham tournament, which begins August 24. Morphy reluctantly agrees. Id.

August 14 – Morphy sends Staunton a note asking to firm up match arrangements. Staunton says he needs still more time. [19]

August 21 – Morphy again asks Staunton to set definite terms for the match, any terms he wants. Staunton leaves for Birmingham without replying. Id.

Late August – Morphy goes to Birmingham, finds Staunton; Staunton immediately takes "the initiative, asking for more time, citing his urgent business and his publisher's pressure, etc. Morphy, exasperated, ask[s], 'Mr. Staunton, will you play in October, in November, or December? Chose your own time but let the decision be final.' Staunton replie[s], 'Well, Mr. Morphy, if you will consent to the postponement, I will play you the beginning of November. I will see my publishers and let you know the exact date in a few days.'" Id.

August 28 – Staunton, using a tactic for which he has become infamous, publishes a letter in his own chess column, signed by "Anti-book" but undoubtedly written by Staunton himself, in which he falsely claims that (1) Morphy had failed to bring representatives to resolve the terms of the match; (2) Morphy did not have the necessary stakes for the match, and (3) Morphy had asked that the stakes be reduced from £1000 a side to £500 a side. Morphy does not respond to this calumny. [20]

October 6 – Morphy, after winning his match with Harrwitz, writes to Staunton "expressing his dismay at the Anti-book letter, blankly declaring the availability of the stakes to any amount, and solving the question of seconds. He asked yet again for a fixed date, mentioning that a copy of the letter would go to several editors to clear any public misconceptions." Id.

October 9 – Staunton replies, "reiterating all his same reasons for previous postponements, but now using them to bow out of the match altogether." Id.

October 23 – "Staunton published his entire reply along with a partial rendition of Morphy's original letter (leaving out any reference to Anti-book). This [leads] to a series of exchanges of anonymous and acrimonious letters in different columns." Id.

Morphy does not engage in any of this, but writes a letter to British Chess Association president Lord Lyttelton, "explaining his own efforts to bring about the match, Staunton's efforts to avoid the match with everything short of admitting he didn't wish to play, and of Staunton's twisting of the facts in the Illustrated London News, demanding 'that you shall declare to the world it is through no fault of mine that this match has not taken place.'" "Lord Lyttelton replied with a mild rebuke of Staunton's tactics and the assurance that no one blamed Morphy for the situation. The letters continued, Staunton's vituperations against Morphy continued, but the situation was basically settled in the public's mind since all but one British chess club, the Cambridge University Chess Club, denounced Staunton's actions in this matter." Id.

To sum up: repeated agreement by Staunton that he would play the match, but four requests by Staunton for additional time to prepare (made June 23, early July, August 14, late August); the August 28 "Anti-book" letter published in Staunton's column making false and slanderous charges against Morphy; Staunton bowing out of the match on October 9; Staunton publishing an incomplete account of the facts on October 23; Staunton continuing his vituperations against Morphy; no such slanders by Morphy, whose actions are at all times completely gentlemanly, at any time; Staunton's actions are denounced by all British chess clubs, with only one exception.

The article presents none of this, nor does it explain what, if anything, about the above account is wrong. Rather, it suggests that Morphy failed to comprehend that Staunton was declining his offer, that Staunton acted honorably but was unable to play the match because of his health and work (the batgirl account says nothing in this regard about Staunton's purported health problems), and that the worst thing Staunton did was not declining Morphy's offer more clearly. This appears to be a blatant whitewash, and a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. Krakatoa (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the brevity of the following - I'd finished writing and checking a longer response when my browser died(*£$%^!).

You've just made an excellent case for a separate article on the Staunton-Morphy controversy.

Discussion of this topic starts from a difficult situation - the popular writers Horowitz, Fine and Reinfeld damn Staunton comprehensively, but serious historical researchers consider them inaccurate. The misconceptions arising from Horowitz, Fine and Reinfeld have to be swept away in order to prepare readers for a more accurate account. For example the "prolific" writers say S avoided strong opponents, but S put considerable effort into seeking a 3rd match with St.-Amant and a match with Anderssen.

Murray presented the initial correspondence between Morphy's supporters and Staunton because he thought the interpretation of Staunton's reply was crucial. M thought S's reply was a polite refusal, which Morphy or his supporters misinterpreted. If Murray was right, it's hard to see how there could have been a good outcome. Are there any good sources that interpret S's initial response as deliberately misleading?

Re S' reaching for the vitriol when the 2 sides got sucked into a blame game, that was normal chess journalistic practice at the time, in both England and USA (see citations in my attempt above to generate discussion on "Staunton's combative writing"; and they were comparatively mild, see Winter's "Attacks on Staunton" page).

In the sort term (before a separate article on the Staunton-Morphy controversy is complete) we need to agree what should go into Howard Staunton. I suggest you do as I did in response to some of SyG's comments above - draft a new version on a sub-page and publish it for comment / contributions. I'm not terribly concerned that it should exonerate Staunton, provided that it points out: the unreliability of popular accounts; that the there are good sources for more than 1 interpretation of Stauntons' actions; that immediately before and shortly after (Chess Priaxis, 1860) S was enthusiastic about Morphy's play; that chess journalism was bare-knuckle in those days. Philcha (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Who was/were batgirl's source(s) for the stuff I've quoted? My impression was that she was citing verbatim, without attribution, material that someone else wrote. (If so, there are names for that sort of thing ...) I've taken a quick look at Lawson's book about Morphy, Edge's book, Sergeant's two books, Max Lange's book, the Reinfeld/Soltis book, and Lawson's 1964 Chessworld article, and don't find this material in those sources. (Lawson and Sergeant have material similar to, but not identical to, batgirl). Are you saying that Fine or Horowitz or Reinfeld is the source? From what book? I'm not aware that any of them wrote about the Morphy-Staunton imbroglio at such length.

I don't know. The only batgirl content cited for the Staunton-Morphy controversy in Howard Staunton is Murray's 2 articles in BCM 1908, which are attributed. Philcha (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As to Staunton's original letter, I agree that it could be read as a polite declination (i.e. "In Europe, you'll meet many champions eager to do battle with you, but I'm not one of them."). But as batgirl, or whatever the original source is, said, Staunton knew that Morphy interpreted it differently, and did nothing to disabuse him of that interpretation. To the contrary, Staunton's statements repeatedly confirmed to Morphy that he was willing to play a match. As Frederick Edge wrote in a letter to the editor of Bell's Life dated October 20, 1858, "we are relieved from the difficulty of discovering Mr. Staunton's real meaning by his reiterated declarations that he would play Paul Morphy. Within a few days of the latter's arrival in London, the English player stated his intention of accepting the match, but postponed the commencement of it for a month, on the plea of requiring preparation. In the month of July the acceptance of the challenge was announced in the Illustrated London News. Before the expiration of the time demanded in the first instance, Mr. Staunton requested that the contest should not take place until after the Birmingham meeting. At Birmingham he again declared his intention of playing the match, and fixed the date for the first week in November, in the presence of numerous witnesses." Edge quotes from Lord Lyttleon's published address to the Birmingham meeting, in which he wishes Morphy success against all the players of Europe, except Staunton, whom Lyttleton as an Englishman hopes will triumph against Morphy. Frederick Milne Edge, The Exploits & Triumphs in Europe of Paul Morphy the Chess Champion, pp. 108-12. Sergeant wrote, "Edge, although English by birth, was very biased against Staunton; but we can hardly think that his prejudice went so far as to allow him to falsify the evidence." Phillip W. Sergeant, Morphy's Games of Chess, p. 13 n.*.

As I commented earlier in our discussion, if Murray was right in suggesting that Staunton meant "Thank you for the honour, but I regret I cannot oblige Mr. Morphy" and that Morphy or his supporters misunderstood Staunton's florid prose, it's hard to see how there could have been a good outcome. Murray says Staunton took on too much by organising the 1851 tournament and playing it (Murray does not say whether S was also working on Shakespeare at the time). Warning - what follows is WP:OR: taking on too much may have been a habit for S; once Morphy was in Europe S's pride might have pushed him into trying to meet the challenge; S had put a lot of effort into trying to play a 3rd match against St.-Amant and a match against Anderssen, so temperamentally he was inclined to look for rathe rthna avoid challenges; the acceptance of Morphy's challenge in the Illustrated London News looks as likely to be over-optimism as Macchiavellian dissimulation.(end WP:OR) If there are historically reliable sources that oppose Murray's interpretation of Staunton's initial response, they should be quoted. Otherwise I think we have to present Murray's interpretation and leave it at that. That does not imply that those who were aggrieved on Morphy's behalf were guilty of dishonesty - as I said, if there was a misunderstanding, it's hard to see a good outcome. Philcha (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As for bare-knuckled chess journalism being the style of the day, it certainly was Staunton's style, and probably Harrwitz's, but I don't think it was universal. Morphy, Anderssen, Lowenthal and surely many others did not practice it.

See also Winter's "Attacks on Howard Staunton". Steinitz was also a noted polemicist (not just on the subject of Staunton), and some of Steinitz' enemies were pretty liberal with their insults (see for example NY Times', 1887). Perhaps bare-knuckled chess journalism was not universal, but it was pretty common. Philcha (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've dumped my unabridged notes about batgirl's (or whoever's) account of the Staunton-Morphy dispute into [21]. Have at it (you or anyone else who's interested). But I really don't have an infinite amount of time to spend on this. I also think that we have to find out who batgirl's source(s) is/are, or use other sources. As I've suggested before, I don't think batgirl, on her own, can be considered a reliable source. Krakatoa (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In such a controversial matter as this I would also prefer to see attributions. If I had time I might try Googling for phrases from the stuff batgirl quotes - Google Books has been kind to me in the past. But even then I would only consider it if we were producing a separate, more detailed article about the controversy. Philcha (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we even know which Batgirl batgirl is? Or is she just the female equivalent of a batboy? :-) Krakatoa (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Answering my own question, she's one Sarah Beth Cohen, apparently. Krakatoa (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she is.

batgirl quotes "Anti-book" as writing that the stakes were originally set at £1,000 a side, then reduced to £500 a side. Such high stakes would have been astonishing in 1858 - Anderssen's prize for London 1851 was two-thirds of the total prize fund of £500, i.e about £335; that is equivalent to about £240,000 in 2006's money ([22]). The stakes were £100 a side in both the second Staunton vs Saint-Amant match (Paris, 1843) and the Anderssen vs Steinitz match (London, 1866); Steinitz and Zukertort played their 1886 match for £400 a side; Morphy reluctantly played for 100 pounds a side in 1858, but his matches with Anderssen, Harrwitz and others were for merely nominal stakes.(Bird's Chess History and Reminiscences, section on stakes). Philcha (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

I am on vacation right now, and thus would not normally be posting a comment at this time. However, SyG on my Talk page asked my current assessment of the article (A-class, GA-class, or something else) because he wanted to close the A-class review. The article is very well done in most respects, and in most respects I would have no problem supporting A class. However, regretfully I do not feel it warrants A class at this time because of its treatment of the Staunton-Morphy controversy. The section on that controversy is written in a strange way, starting out with a lengthy attack on Frederick Edge rather than discussing what Edge says. Edge (and later Lawson, who relies in part on Edge) set out a lengthy chronology of events (various letters, multiple requested postponements by Staunton to which Morphy assents, the infamous "anti-book" letter published in Staunton's column, and Staunton's final declination of the match), which is decidedly unflattering to Staunton. (I set out a brief chronology of those events above under "Paul Morphy".) The current section on the Staunton-Morphy controversy does not set out those events, but instead focuses on attacking Edge and closes out with Murray, a pro-Staunton commentator who glosses over a lot of relevant events, and treats him as the final word on the subject. I do not think this is a NPOV treatment, nor do I think it is written in an appealing style (the text of the article should focus on the facts as best they can be ascertained rather than on attacking Edge). Thus, at this time I regretfully oppose promoting this article to A class.

I intend after I get back home and finish some outstanding personal matters to work on the Staunton-Morphy section. I hope to get that section in a state that I would consider NPOV and A-class-worthy (obviously, others may or may not agree). But if forced to vote today, I must vote against A class. My understanding is that GA class is not formally on the table at the moment, since that review has not started, but at this time I would also oppose GA class for the same reason. I say all of this regretfully, and with utmost respect for all of the work that people have put into the article. Krakatoa (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have made quite a few edits to the article (146), so I probably should be disqualified from voting on it. Krakatoa (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

All the conditions required to close this review are met:

• three different editors have reviewed the article and expressed an opinion.
• more than three weeks have occurred since the beginning of the review.
• more than one week has passed since the last comment was made in the review.

All reviewers agree this is an outstanding article that Philcha has developed here. Also kudos to him to have stand the continuous flow of "constructive remarks" coming from the reviewers, myself in first place. Unfortunately the article still has issues to deal with:

• I consider the section on Notable games to contain WP:OR. This may be a general problem in most chess biographies, so probably this point will need to be addressed globally in the WikiProject Chess.
• Brittle heaven considers the strength of Staunton is not appropriately dealt with, and there are also style issues.
• Krakatoa considers the treatment of the missed match between Staunton and Morphy is too favourable to Staunton, thus missing WP:NPOV.

Therefore, I shall close the review and declare the article is not judged up to the A-class for the moment. I wish to this article a good luck for its try into the GA-review. SyG (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have put a ton of work into this article, and think it is quite comprehensive, well-sourced, and has excellent examples. I have looked at a lot of sources, and I frankly think that this article covers the subject better than anything I've seen in the literature. There are a lot of books along the lines of "How to Defend Difficult Positions," such as "The Art of Defense in Chess" (Soltis), "The Art of Defence in Chess" (Polugaevsky/Damsky), etc., but there is not much on swindles as such: how to try to rescue yourself from a clearly lost position. And I haven't seen anything that treats swindles in a comprehensive way, as this article does. Apart from Marshall, who reveled in swindles, most authors tend to shy away from the subject, considering swindles somehow uncouth. Even great swindles usually don't make it into players' "best games" collections, since people like to show off games where they played brilliantly the entire way, rather than games where they played badly, got lost positions, then bamboozled their way out. (For example, Bouaziz-Miles, a swindling masterpiece, is not in Miles' biography, and Karpov's "My 300 Best Games" doesn't include Karpov-Csom. Very few players have ever heard of Beliavsky-Christiansen, maybe the greatest swindling game of all time.) Anyway, enough blathering. I hope you like the article. Thanks for your consideration. Krakatoa (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)/

WITHDRAWN BY PROPONENT This article is obviously unworthy, and should be deleted instead. Krakatoa (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks a lot for your work on this article, it looks very comprehensive. I don't have time to go through it now, but I can tell you that the biggest hurdle to get this article featured will be (a) the topic, (b) the style of the article. This is the sad reality of featured articles! Now I am not saying that the topic isn't worth being featured, or that the article is written in a bad style, just saying that if you are trying to make this article featured, you should be prepared being attacked on both. I ran the article to the automatic peerreviewer bot, and here is the output (this should help improving (b)):

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question:

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, didn't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]

Voorlandt (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I will definitely look into all of that. I didn't realize that getting an article featured was such a ritual, although I should have expected as much. I don't generally look at the featured articles, but looked at today's on the Philadelphia Inquirer. No doubt it's impolitic to say so, but I was pretty underwhelmed. Ungrammatical sentences, at least one misspelling, whole paragraphs making assorted factual assertions without a single reference, etc. Krakatoa (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I am just mentioning it, since I had a rather bad experience with Bughouse Chess. For the article I read several books, spend weeks researching and contacted a dozen of people for info. In my obviously biased opinion it is the most balanced and complete essay ever written on bughouse. Nevertheless, it was critized for its length and for the lack of history section. Although it is hardly my fault the history is unknown! What matters for FA more is (1) the topic; (2) the length of the article and perhaps the most important one (3) whether it looks good! Shorter articles, with less text are read far more thoroughly than long articles, and therefore far more prone to critic. I have also seen many long FA articles riddled with mistakes. That said, don't let my bad experience discourage you. The first step is of course getting this article through A and GA review. I think it needs a little bit more work, but not much. Voorlandt (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bughouse chess indeed looks like a very thorough article, and I'm sorry you didn't make it. But I appreciate learning of your unhappy experience: that way I won't take it too hard when Swindle (chess) gets shot down . . . . Krakatoa (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments This is clearly a very good article on a difficult and understudied subject. Apart from Voorlandt's comments, here are some additional remarks if we want to narrow the gap to FA-class:

• The article includes Original Analysis, and that is forbidden in Wikipedia! See for example the 38th reference.
• In the lead, I do not understand the difference between the first sentence "In chess, a swindle is a ruse by which a player [...] achieves a win or draw instead of the expected loss" and the second sentence "It may also refer more generally to obtaining a win or draw from a clearly losing position". Probably the first sentence refers to one-mover and the second is more general, but this could be more explicit.
• As the lead states that certain players [...] have become famous for their swindling exploits, I would expect to see a section in the article on famous swindlers (with due references, of course), otherwise it is just reckoning.
• Some diagrams have a legend that is too long. I would expect the legends to be no more than one line.
• I would suggest to systematically include in the legend of the diagrams the move number at which is position is obtained.
• Most sections in Recurrent themes are just a collection of examples. Would it be possible to add a bit more substance (I mean, some general considerations in each chapter) to make it a bit more "encyclopedic" ?
• In the section Perpetual check there are interesting remarks about the pieces that are good for attack but suddenly bad for defence, making it impossible to the player to adapt to the new situation. Maybe these considerations could be generalised, developped and put into the section Practical consideration as they are not valid only for perpetual check.
• The section Practical consideration is the most encyclopedic one. In order to promote it, I would propose to put it before the section Recurrent themes, and to split it into different subsections (for the moment it is too long).
• There seems to be some syntax problems here and there (although I am a pure patzer in syntax), just to name a few:
  • The first sentence of the section Classic example lacks an ending point.
  • Same section, the second sentence has a reference placed in the middle of the text, which is not in line with the Formating Guidelines, as far as I know.
  • Same section, sentence but Marshall saw an opportunity for "a last 'swindle", there seems to be a lonesome comma in the quotation.
  • In "de Firmian-Shirazi", in the sentence "since 31.Qxe4 allows 31...Rfl#." there is a "l" instead of a "1".
  • The sentence "Draw by perpetual check is another oft-seen way of swindling" when the word "often" is misspelled.
  • The sentence "However, Krogius warns that one should deliberately get into time trouble only after after a detailed assessment of a number of considerations" contains twice the word "after".
• There is no History section; that could be useful to know if there are more or less swindles than in the past, e.g. due to the improvement of chess computers.
• There is no example with a chess computer, whereas I believe they are very good in swindles due to their great tactical abilities.
• The consequences of famous swindles could be explained further, e.g. for "the swindle of the century".
• In the Stalemate section, a sentence says "Another famous Marshall swindle is Marshall-MacClure, New York 1923 (diagram at right)" while I understand it should be "(diagram at left)".
• In the Weak back rank section, the first sentence says "Mating threats along the opponent's back rank often enable one to win or draw from a lost position." which is precisely the definition of swindles, if I understand correctly. Therefore a more consise formulation could be something like "Mating threats along the opponent's back rank often enable one to swindle."
• Having the diagrams first and the explanations next could be found a bit confusing for the casual reader, especially as there is no clear separation between the different articles. Maybe sometimes some subsections could be used ?
• In the example "Chigorin-Schlechter, Ostend 1905", I find there are too many exclamation marks in the explanations, as I would only give an exclamation mark to 44...Qc7, the other ones being nor difficult to find, nor forced.
• I do not see the point of putting wikilinks for years, like 1997, especially when the sentence has nothing special to do with the concerned year.
• The article contains some Id. references that do nothing apart from taking space, while it is better in Wikipedia to cite several times the same reference without creating a separate line every time.
• In the first sentence about "de Firmian-Shirazi", we can read "GM de Firmian is ahead three pawns" while I am not sure it has been explained above that "GM" stands for Grandmaster ? Same remark for "IM Shirazi".
• The difference between a swindle and a blunder is not clearly explained. I mean, do you have a swindle every time there is a trick in the position ? Or is it only when you play second-best move that sets up a trap ?
• I am not sure the "Zukertort-Steinitz, London 1883" example is a good one, as I do not see the swindle. I mean, Black has sacrificed an exchange to decentralised the White queen and get an attack, then the attack succeeds because White blunders. But where is the ruse ?
• Same remark on "Donner-Fischer": is it really a swindle ? it looks like just a blunder from Fischer.
• Same remark on most of the examples in the Material insufficiency section: not really swindles to me, just good play from the side with the less material. This is acknowledgeg in the article, but then why keep them here ? A good example of swindle could be the recent game "Grischuck-Polgar" when Polgar managed to save a K+N+2P/K+N endgame.
• Very generally, in a FA review there could be some critics regarding the need for an article on the subject, for example:
  • What is the need for an article on "swindling in chess" ? I mean, there could just be an article called "Swindle (games)" ? Is there any way swindles in chess are particular, e.g. compared with swindles in Go or Checkers ?
  • Why is this theme encyclopedic, and not just trivia ? Given the references, it seems noone has bothered to publish some work dedicated to this subject, so maybe this is just a collection of anecdotes ?
  • Why is this theme encyclopedic, and not just a definition ? Why not just moving the definition to Wiktionnary, instead of an article in Wikipedia ?

I hope you don't find these comments too harsh or pointy, of course the aim is just to improve the article and maybe prepare a FA review, which are often very depressing. SyG (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Close the review As the nominator has withdrawn the nomination for the article, I shall close the review. SyG (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This article previously was rated 'A' and it's rating got removed because it never had a review, hence adding it here. ChessCreator (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I do not think this should be an "A" article. First, it covers the technical aspects (pairings, etc) very well and completely. However, there are no key games or positions given. There are no photos. And even if there were games, positions, and photos, there are articles that are about more important events. There are several world championship matches that don't have articles. Bubba73 (talk), 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is much good technical stuff, but not much that makes the event interesting. Bubba73 (talk), 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose to A-class. My first reasons are:

• The lead is too short and not well organised. For example it mix up important elements (location, date, purpose) and minor/trivia ones (two 17-years-old).
• Some whole chapters do not have any reference, e.g. the "Background" chapter.
• Some sentences are too subjective. For example in "Prominent non-participants" it says "All other leading players [...] were eligible to participate", but noone defined which players are leading and which are not.
• There are no key games mentioned.
• There are no photos.
• There is no "Footnotes" section distinct from the "References" section.
• Some wikilinks work only with redirects.
• Some wikilinks are superfluous, e.g. the one linking "$" to the wiki article "United States dollar".
• There are some external links directly in the article, e.g. some ChessBase reports.
• It is not immediately clear to me why the rounds 5-7 are placed before the rounds 1-4. Is there a Wikipedia Guidelines on this type of formatting ?

However, as it is still a well-enough organised article, I would suggest to consider it for GA-class. SyG (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This is a typical well written class B article, but IMO doesn't qualify for A class. I applaud the large amount of encyclopaedic content, but for A class there should be much more text and definitely a photo. Voorlandt (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose