Talk:Chess960/Archive 2

I've put in an edit request to the {{tl|N/A}] to wikilink to the wiktionary definition in case readers don't know what it means. NE Ent 13:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Forgot to put name 14:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or another on this, but would like to register my logic about it. The idea of wlink'ing the N/A cell entries is clever, but, with 6 defs at the Wiktionary, I'm not sure how much benefit to readers it would be. Also, "not available" is different meaning than "not applicable", and, I'm not sure which applies to the empty cells (perhaps they are all "not applicable", but, I don't know for sure w/o researching). I have no problem with the ambiguity of N/A, only because, the previous cell fill, "-", was ambiguous as well. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If it needs a link to be understood, it should be explained instead in the article. Normally I'd say a caption could be used, but the cells in that table are very wide so there's no reason to use an abbreviation. If those championships were not held, the cells should say something like "no contest held" instead of N/A. Quale (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you. Let's see Ihardlythinkso agrees or no. — Forgot to put name (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is one of the reasons I had opposed replacing "-" by "N/A". (Because "N/A" carries meaning; "-" does not.) I'm not sure what the facts are regarding those events, the research is doable but isn't also a triviality. I know incorrect info can be later corrected no big deal, but I for one am uncomfortable laying down info that might be misleading. My guess is "not applicable" (no tournament held) applies in all cases, but my guess is worth less than a cup of coffee here. (The conflict that erupted out of rush to fill the cells, put me out of mood for any research to confirm. Sorry.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If no championship, Woman Chess960 Championship or computer championship was held in that year then obviously that cell is not applicable. However, as you have mentioned, the research on the championships is doable. If that's misleading, then let's replace the table cells with {{n/a}} for now. Whenever we unveil new information, let's remove the N/A from the table and fill it with the necessary information. This source may be helpful for World Chess 960 championships (Don't know whether it's reliable or not, maybe useful, found by searching in Google. You are more experienced than me, you can decide whether it is or no). World Chess 960 Championships columns and rows are replaceable but the Women Chess 960 Championship and Computer chess 960 columns probably cannot be replaced (Probably can be replaced, but will have to do another research for the same). — Forgot to put name (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso is right. If we don't know whether a contest was held or not, then N/A is absolutely not appropriate and in fact misleading and incorrect. The appropriate treatment would be to either leave those cells blank or perhaps use ? to indicate that we haven't determined the facts. "Not available" would also not be correct because we haven't determined that the results are not available. We don't know the truth, so although the results are perhaps not known to us presently we haven't determined that they are not available in a global sense. n/a is wrong for this use. In addition to all this, in my experience "n/a" most often is used to indicate "not applicable" rather than "not available", and although neither of these meanings is correct for this situation the first meaning is an even worse fit than the second. Quale (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. And my pref would be blank cells. (As an aside, the American Heritage Dictionary 4th ed. gives "not applicable" as the sole def; "not available" isn't given.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as an aside: I think I originally put that table there in 2009, and as far as I could determine it was complete. Also, the German wikipedia has an article dedicated to the WC chess 960 and seems to agree there (which is good news, as I would imagine they have access to better sources, since these tournaments were played in Mainz). --Voorlandt (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to go with German Wikipedia. German Wikipedia too says that no championship was held in 2002. So I think N/A would be most appropriate even if its sole definition is not applicable. I forgot a point, the Oxford English Dictionary (One of the most reliable dictionaries) gives Not applicable and Not available as the definition. — Forgot to put name (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not a good idea: another wiki does not satisfy WP:RS (what if they were copying this article!?), and it is obvious that all this discussion over "n/a" means those letters are no help to a reader. If there is no good reason to believe we know the status of a particular entry, it would be better to omit any label. Even using "unknown" is problematic because that would suggest to a reader that no one knows the status (not just that the current editors have no idea). If the row in the table must be kept, a blank entry seems the only sensible procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Here, consensus appears to say that the table rows should be left blank. So I would prefer to go with consensus. — Forgot to put name (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"An initial position of kings and rooks where a Queen-side castle for White and a King-side castle for Black will do nothing." Looks like that black king-side statement is not right. I guess it must be 5rkr for the eight rank instead of 1rkr4 as it is now for king-side castle to do nothing. I'll edit it like this now, hope it is correct. Ketorin (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh the whole example board got deleted, ok maybe better so. Ketorin (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I added it because chess.com has the error (i.e., in any game with that specific position, with a castle, the player will have 2 rooks on the same file), so I hoped that it would somehow help future people reading it (especially those writing software). It's fine that you removed it, but I think it's important for people to know (as it's an odd situation that arises during setup). I don't think my initial diagram was incorrect. It was meant to account for when a white or black castle will essentially do nothing (instead of erroneously putting 2 rooks on the same file). Esotericpig (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ketorin didn't remove it, I did. The artcle shouldn't contain text based on some esoteric s/w bug on some website (Chess.com). And the text "when a White or Black castle will essentially do nothing" was misleading since it is mistaken (all Chess960 castles "do something"). Ok, IHTS (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. However, from the Wikipedia text, "In some starting positions, the king or rook (but not both) do not move during castling." Technically, it is a move, but also technically, nothing is done. It's essentially a null move. See how you didn't even know that there was a null move? A lot of people don't, and I just wanted to clarify it some more, just trying to help readers. Esotericpig (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops, that's the wrong quote. In fact, I can't find the original quote anymore as it has been removed (I'm sure in history & old edits). Anyway, it will be simpler to display, so I provided the original diagram below. "After a-side castling, the king finishes on the c-file (c1 for White, c8 for Black) and the a-side rook finishes on the d-file (d1 for White, d8 for Black). The move is notated 0-0-0 and is known as queenside castling in standard chess." In the below diagram, an a-side castle for white will move king on c1 to c1 and rook b1 on d1? No, this is a special case in which it will be notated as a move, but nothing will be done. b1 rook will not also be on d1 with the other rook. Like I said, it's technically a "move" but also technically does nothing. A null move. A special case in Chess960. Esotericpig (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No, there's no such thing as "null move" in 960. (In the diag you coded here, 0-0-0 is simply an impossible [illegal] move. It's not possible because d1 isn't vacant to relocate rook on b1 to d1. If you read the 960 rules again, you'll find it here: "all squares between the rook's initial and final squares (including the final square), must be vacant except for the king and castling rook.") Ok, IHTS (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see this link (http://www.mark-weeks.com/cfaa/chess960/c960strt.htm). Look at 946 (BRKRNBNQ) and 947 (BRKRNNQB) with XRKR! It's a completely valid starting position in Chess960! If not, then it should be Chess958! Vacancy rule deals with such things as RNBK where the N and B need to be gone. However, in the diagram below, it's assumed other pieces have left, except for the R and K. In 946 and 947, the castle would not do anything! This is why I added it to the wikipedia page because people are unaware of this. Esotericpig (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. In 946 & 947, with all pieces gone except K & Rs, White cannot play 0-0-0, since d1 is occupied. (After the d1-R moves, then 0-0-0 is possible. When you say 0-0-0 "would not do anything", that's wrong, 0-0-0 causes the b1-R to go to d1. And that is "doing something".) Did you read the rules text I copied above? That text contradicts your "Vacancy rule deals [only] with such things as RNBK where the N and B need to be gone." (For RNBKxxxx, yes, N & B need to be gone. But for xRKxxxxx, the d1-square must be vacant.) IHTS (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(This might help you ...) The rules text says "all squares between the rook's initial and final squares (including the final square), must be vacant except for the king and castling rook." OK, here is a starting pos where the R's final square is "vacant except for the king": xRxKxxxx (where x = vacant square). And here is one where the R's final square is "vacant except for the castling rook": xxxRKxxx.

The rules text quoted above is precise, but maybe not concise--perhaps its wordiness has confused you. (I didn't write that text, but it is precise.) IHTS (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense, but doesn't it go against the original way Fischer wanted to modify Chess960? In original Chess, I have the option to either castle king-side or queen-side when there are only Rooks and King on the back rank. But now, if I have this start position of 946 or 947, I have to move a rook. Are there official rules out there by FIDE or USCF that explain what to do here? If we are to be faithful to the original Chess setup, then castling must be allowed either way I would think. Instead, we now have to move a rook away in order to castle queen-side, and it's only for roughly 2 (maybe more?) initial setups. I think what you said should be explained in a new subsection of the castling rules. Like, in original chess, I have people argue about En Passant, and I have an official place I can point to and tell them that En Passant is a real move. Now if 946 or 947 arise, they may either try to do a null move, or they may force me to move a rook (if a null move is allowed). This seems like either a flaw or something that should be outlined in the rules specifically. If it is the case where the rook must move first, then I think a new subsection should be added to explain this. :) Esotericpig (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand this now, but you seem to still have some hang-up, and I don't really understand what it is (or why a subsec w/ be required). (Castling *is* permitted either KS or QS in 960. It is just that for 0-0-0, the K does not move in RxKxxxxx and xRKxxxxx setups. And for 0-0, the K does not move in xxxxxxKR setups. But they are still considered castling moves in 960, 0-0-0 and 0-0.)

Like the article says, the 960 rules are specified in the FIDE rules appendix.

To repeat, I don't see any outstanding issues (with exception perhaps the rules text could be made more concise to avoid misunderstandings like you had), and don't understand your hang-up. (Fischer's castling rules were simply designed: the K is always between the Rs; the castle end-positions are identical to standard chess; and no intervening or ending squares can be occupied, except by the K and castling R. Simple.)

In an earlier version of the article castling sec, there was some referenced text on "tips", including "move only the rook" in the setups we've been talking about here. Well, that subsec (tips) was removed (on March 1 by Ketorin , please read these "tips"). Perhaps that is what you are alluding to, for clearer understanding, of when castling involves moving only the R. (I dunno. But if so, perhaps those tips s/b restored to the article, or the ones that apply anyway, to satisfy what you're driving at!?) IHTS (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(You're welcome!) IHTS (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

"Castling suggestions" section is pretty vague also. I'd remove all but first paragraph. What is WNCA? Not much luck Googling it. Ketorin (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I am removing the section "Playing online" because it is not encyclopedic and is obsolete since such information should be condensed and presented in the External Links section. Unihedro (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Under History>Mainz Championships are two confusing things to me and would prefer someone brighter than me correct them (if correction is needed).

1. "Note: None of these championships not recognized by FIDE." Double-negative? Really? If all of the championships are recognized by FIDE then simply say, "All of these championships are recognized by FIDE." If none are, it should be corrected to something like, "None of these championships are recognized by FIDE."

2. In the subsec that begins 2006, this appears, "Étienne Bacrot won the Chess960 open tournament, earning him a title match against Aronian in 2007." But in the following subsec (year 2007) Aronian defends against Anand with no explanation as to what happen to the previously mentioned title defense—what happened to the Aronian-Bacrot championship game?

Musix4me (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Versus removal based on "not encyclopedic" , I feel the sec conveys value to the article seeing that Fischer's proposed modification to chess is radical and there are differing views from grandmasters on it. The sec obviously doesn't attempt to be comprehensive re views but rather show there are differing opinions, and present a balanced representation of them (including a more extensive justification/explanation from Fischer). Perhaps an intro sentence could/should be added to put the sec into this context, I dunno. --IHTS (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)  Done --IHTS (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: Better to discuss here to allow input from other editors. For starters the quotes section is almost completely unsourced. That alone is grounds to excise most of it, as direct quotes are one of the cases that should definitely be sourced (refer WP:MOS#Attribution). In addtion, the quotes are WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I understand that it's limited to grandmasters, but that doesn't stop it from being indiscriminate. Why do we need such a large number of quotes and from these masters specifically? At most one or two major ones should be quoted. Fischer's own quotes aren't really helpful here since the point is to show the reception of the system and he's the designer/promoter. Finally, a subsection purely devoted to a list of quotations is a big no-no. That's what Wikiquote is for. It is expected on Wikipedia that quotations be presented by being integrated into the text. An article shouldn't just list off quotes, but contextualize them and organize them. This also has ramifications for copyright, as merely listing off quotes starts to enter the territory of plagiarism and doesn't meet fair use. This is what I meant by being nice and just tagging the section for being moved over to Wikiquote rather than outright removing it. Opencooper (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes the quotes are unsourced. But that can be fixed. (I added all the quotes. I can source them. So that isn't a reason to "nuke the section".) --IHTS (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The quotes are definitely not "indiscriminate", since I took the time/effort to select them individually w/ purpose. --IHTS (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

There are nine quotes by grandmasters other than Fischer, and two by Fischer. That's not "a large number of quotes". --IHTS (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Why quotes by "these grandmasters specifically"? When I selected them, I didn't target any grandmasters, w/ possible exception of having a quote by Kasparov, a Fischer antagonist, and one by Gligoric, an early Chess960 proponent. I found the rest in my book, so they were easily accessible by me w/o more research. "Why quotes by these grandmasters?" Their opinions together show breadth of considerations re Chess960, and, why *not* these grandmqasters? Again I wasn't looking for any particular grandmasters, save the two. --IHTS (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"At most one or two" grandmasters should be quoted? Doing that w/ deny the article the spectrum of thought re pros & cons & other considerations or views re Chess960. I included a sufficient number w/ varying angles of view to provide that spectrum. --IHTS (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Fischer's views aren't helpful"?! There's no where else in the article that expresses the heart of *why* Fischer invented his variant. And giving the reader from the horses mouth gives real & accurate understanding of the motivation & justification behind the birth of the variant. --IHTS (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

A list of quotes in an article is counter WP policy and belongs in Wikiquote? I'm not sure that's correct by policy. I think or suspect you are too focused on word "quote" ... I have no problem naming the section & subsection "Opinions of" or "Views of" or "Views on pros and cons" etc. etc. Banning the section based on the "radiating" word "quote" I think is short-sighted and will remove for only superficial reason value to the article. --IHTS (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"It is expected on Wikipedia that quotations be presented by being integrated into the text. An article shouldn't just list off quotes, but contextualize them and organize them." I can agree to that! (Why did I produce a list of quotes instead? I'm lazy. It was easier to do. I didn't have to write any enjoining text. I think I could do that. I think other editors could do that. Again, I think the views have value and no reason to kill them over my taking the easy route.) --IHTS (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Plagiarism"?! If I source the quotes w/ refs, and as long as they are quotations, I don't see how that c/ be. --IHTS (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add one comment, though ... I think all the quotes (the nine plus the two) were when Fischerandom/Chess960 was fairly new on the scene. Since then Chess960 has become more mainstream. So the "debate" (re pros & cons) re Chess960 is kind of obsolete by now (not really pertinent). (Fischer's comments are the exception, since they convey his motivation & purpose for inventing the variant, which will never change.) The quotes w/ more & more thru time become just an echo of early reception to Fischerandom. (I honestly didn't think of that when writing the section; it seemed to me at the time that acceptance was still a hotter issue.) --IHTS (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of sourcing, they'd still be inappropriate and wouldn't mitigate copyright issues (see WP:COPYQUOTE). They're quotes because they're literally only other people's words. It's indiscriminate because it's a laundry list of reactions. Our articles on films don't for example list what every single film critic has said about it. No, instead, they limit the list to major critics and those that have said something of substance and unique. They also contextualize the reception, for example by grouping criticism around how the acting, cinematography, etc was received (that's how to appropriately present angles). As it currently is, the article is just "a person said b; c person said d; e person said f". It's a lazy collection of quotes that forces the reader to read other people's words rather than the whole point of a tertiary source which is to summarize these sources. This is what I mean by integration and why the list format doesn't work here (there is most definitely a better location in the article for why he invented his variant). Ideally, there would be prose that paraphrases the general sentiment and quotes judiciously (there are certain places where the horses mouth is the best to go with, but it's not "every single sentence"). Editors are supposed to extract and summarize the viewpoints. While some things work better in list format, a list of quotes is never appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Wikiquote or Brainyquote or some other quote farm. Opencooper (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything at WP:COPYQUOTE that describe or w/ prohibit the existing quotes. --IHTS (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The quotes are a "laundry list"? Don't know what you mean. (Again, I selected these carefully, when I was done I decided that adding any additional, or taking away any, w/ hurt the spectrum of views presented. I even carefully chose their presentation order. Your "laudry list" means number? Again, only nine and two.) --IHTS (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Every single film critic". Again, I carefully selected the quotes, when I was done I felt adding more w/ be detrimental, subtracting any w/ be detrimental to the value of providing the spectrum of view response from grandmasters. (You keep pushing that I indescriminately put a random list together, I know that to be untrue, so a bit insulting.) --IHTS (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"No, instead, they limit the list to major critics and those that have said something of substance and unique." And that is exactly what I did also. --IHTS (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Contextualize the reception". I already said yes, a descriptive narrative rather than a list is fine & why I didn't originally do it (expediency). I think we're going in circles now you're coming back on things I've already answered. --IHTS (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"A a lazy collection of quotes that forces the reader to read other people's words rather than the whole point of a tertiary source which is to summarize these sources." When I composed the section, I saw nothing inherently evil about a list. Some readers may prefer or enjoy to get independent views straight from the grandmasters. Lazy yes, w/ the caveat that I carefully selected these quotes (have I written that three or four times by now?). I have no problem w/ a non-list presentation of the spectrum of grandmaster response/view/opinion of Fischer's variant. Again you're repeating your arguments I've aleady responded to. --IHTS (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"There is most definitely a better location in the article for why he invented his variant". I wouldn't disagree w/ that. (Again, no one was helping, the structure I made was out of expediency, I've never maintained Fischer's explanation of the rationale for his variant must be in a list form, in the "views" section, etc. You're arguing form or structure, and I never contended mine must stick or is/was anyway superior.) --IHTS (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Editors are supposed to extract and summarize the viewpoints." (And similar.) You're lecturing me re how to edit now, and again, I've conceded several things here, including never contending or maintaining my list form should stick or was/is the best way to present. But you should stop lecturing me about "Wikipedia" or I will begin to lecture you: NAMELY, that people (editors) add to articles. Other editors massage and edit it. An article evolves over time. There are many contributors. Ideally. But if you survey the edit history of *this* article, you will see that "numerous contributors" shaping & evolving the article isn't so active as other more popular articles. So for example there has been *no one* helping fashion or evolve the quote section, there has been *only me*, all by my lonesome. But! I have *you* to come here and try and pick me apart in numerous ways, lecturing me and chiding me. Why don't *you* do *your job* as editor as Wikipedia has designed it for evolving articles, and contribute your ideas to actual copyedit work, instead of scolding & complaining and threatening to "nuke" all the while explaining how "nice" you've been! Ok I'll stop now before I really dig into you. --IHTS (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to question your intent, but that's the end result. You obviously put a lot of time and effort into the quotes, but for the purposes of the article, they are indeed indiscriminate because they are in the context of a list of quotes. To compare it to another problem area in Wikipedia: a section entirely devoted to trivia would be quickly deleted, but if it's integrated properly, then it's no longer trivia. When I refer to editors, I'm not lecturing your specifically, but make it clear what is generally expected by guidelines (several of which I've linked). This isn't merely a stylistic question or I wouldn't care so much about it. It's contrary to our major guidelines. This isn't something that can be fixed with light copyediting. Putting it for example in a subsection titled "Reception" and prosifying it like "A said, B said" would still not alleviate the major problems I've pointed out. The fact that it's information expressed purely through the usage of quotations is why it has to go. I'm not some big bad wolf whose sole purpose is to take away your hard work: that's why I merely tagged it and left it for future work. But you objected to even that so here we are. I also told you how it would be properly done, so I'm not sure where you're coming from and taking my feedback as attacks. If you don't want to hear it from me, Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse:

• "Overuse happens when[:] the quotes dominate the ... section"
• "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style."
• "Quotes shouldn't replace plain, concise text. Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose."
• "Avoid stand-alone quote sections; use Wikiquote instead."

These are all points I've told you in my own words. Opencooper (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You aren't "trying to question [my] intent" but "that's the end result". !?!?!?! You're redundant & repeating yourself once more, I've already replied to each issue more than once. So I won't be responding further, there w/ be no end to it. You're a complainer, and you dishonestly misrepresented what I've stated here. (E.g. at no time did I say "light copyediting", yet you put those words in my mouth then attack them. You've done the same re other of your issues, I believe that technique is called "straw man".) You're "not lecturing [me] specifically". !?!?!?! You love to lecture! Your "our major guidelines" is insulting in two ways (figure out for yourself how). You tagged the section for removal from the article, yet you say "I'm not [...] purpose is to take away [...]." (Another reason you've been so irritating ... throughout you say things that you then immediately contradict, I c/ list several examples but won't take the time/effort.)

Your basis for flagging WP:NOTQUOTE was what I offered to discuss w/ you, to see if it really applies, as I couldn't see that it did. However upon entering discussion, you abandoned any mention of it, instead pouncing on numerous different complaints, presumably because you had no confidence in defending the original tag, I don't know. (It's beyond U-turning to discuss now.) Your pattern of redundant complaining while showing no evidence of hearing any response, and your ugly pattern of saying one thing then immediately conradicting or undermining what you just said, which I presumably am tasked to read as if there were no contradiction present, is too crazy-making for me to continue discussing w/ you directly. (There are no other contributors here, I haven't solicited outside opinions or templated this discussion for that purpose, even perhaps that w/ be appropriate. I'm just not motivated to do anything for you or this conflict. You've destroyed that. Even I continued to source every quote, to re-write the content in narrative form, and to integrate the quotes by Fischer elsewhere in the article, my instincts tell me you wouldn't be satisfied and continue nit-picking & lecturing. You never suggested that if I proceed to do, such reformation w/ be acceptable to you, while giving me cause to suspect the opposite based on the behavior patterns I've called out.) --IHTS (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As someone who's just come across this article, I basically agree with Opencooper above, this section is a bit of a quotefarm. If these quotes are to be kept in the article, every one of them should be sourced, or they could be entirely made up. (The last quote by Fischer is sourced, but the length of it means it borders on being a copyright violation.) Robofish (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Will be sourcing. (Net waste of my time, however, if sec is "nuked".) --IHTS (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done} --IHTS (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Re "farm", the quotes were selected from much larger quote world as representative by Gligoric in his very short book. (Then further trimmed by me as editor.) Even a farmer plans his crops. --IHTS (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Re long Fischer quote, maybe I can learn something ... Do you know who's owner of copyright in this case? (Seirawan? Fischer's estate? The quote occurred in a public press conference, attended & reported by many journalists, also recorded on flim.) Ok, --IHTS (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

how's my wikiquote please? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess Thewriter006 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Instruktorek moved page Fischer Random Chess to Chess960 with the comment: “more correct name, in oficial FIDE Handbook is Chess960”. I don’t think it’s accurate to claim that chess960 is “more correct in oficial FIDE Handbook”. The current handbook mentions only Fischer Random. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the move for now. Might also be worth checking out the discussion at Talk:Three-man chess on the capitalization of chess. SnowFire (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually User:Instruktorek is right: FIDE Laws of Chess (in effect from 1 January 2018) call the game Chess960, not Fischer Random. Sophia91 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Also I'd like to point out that the page was moved to "Fischer Random Chess" after technical request by another user without discussion on talk page. Sophia91 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter though. FIDE rules could call it Zucchini Coronet Chess. WP:COMMONNAME has changed a lot, and the 2019 tournament that Wesley So just won used "Fischer Random Chess" and attracted a ton of coverage under that name, probably more coverage than all the previous coverage combined. SnowFire (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

More important is official FIDE Handbook than comercial name of tournament who win Wesley So. For example in de wiki is Chess960. Correct name is Chess960. Instruktorek (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems to depend on where you go on the internet. I went on fide.com/fide/handbook where the only mention is Fischer Random. Either way I don’t think anyone can really claim that FIDE indicates that one or the other is "more correct". GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

In FIDE Handbook is Chess960 PS We don't speak about name of tournament but about variant of chess.Instruktorek (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Your argument is doubly incorrect. Sorry, but on Wikipedia, we go by the commonly recognizable name, not the official name. But as GumsGrammaticus has pointed out, FIDE's official tournament used Fischer Random, so even if you want to fall back on official names only and say FIDE gets to name the variant not the creator, this doesn't work. (Not contesting that older handbooks used Chess960, just saying the name has clearly changed in popularity/officialness since then.) . 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Just fyi, the current handbook also uses Chess960, under laws of chess, it's just that the new site sucks and doesn't have specifc links for every subsection of the handbook, that's why both me and Instruktorek linked to old.fide. Sophia91 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This may be pointless since the style crew voted and the chess crew didn't, but note that this was moved to a lowercase name per the big chess move. From my view of the sources, this wasn't merited, but I dunno if it's worth a separate RM since clearly people weren't buying what I was selling. @Dicklyon, Sophia91, GümsGrammatiçus, Instruktorek, and Anthony Appleyard:, thoughts? I chatted with Dicklyon on this specific variant at the Three-Man Chess RM, and while a lot of the variants there have incredibly spotty sources, this variant has good sources, and they all capitalize it recently. Even if Wikipedia somehow "influenced" this (which Dicklyon brought up at the RM, although that seems doubtful, since this variant was at Chess960 before), who cares? The name can change over time, and all the recent sources are capped for whatever reason. SnowFire (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"the style crew voted and the chess crew didn't" is an odd way to characterize the process of an RM discussion on a chess page; are you saying that the "chess crew" should/would vote to cap their own stuff? I don't really see an analysis of sources supporting this as a proper name, nor a trademark; like most other chess variants that way. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I think that the title of this article should be capitalized as: Fischer Random Chess. It’s a proper noun, because it’s a noun that identifies a single entity (like Rolling Stones, London or Jupiter). It is not a common noun, which is a noun that refers to class of entities (city, cat, chess). In modern English orthography, proper names are normally capitalized — as Fischer Random Chess is styled almost invariably in books and magazines. I thought the discussion regarding Three-man chess was a bungle. That discussion was too brief (it was open for only a month), it was shut down prematurely (it was active and on-going when it was ended), and it involved way too few editors (many or most making multiple comments). An editor (User:StraussInTheHouse — who is not an administrator) made the judgement to close the discussion (wrongly in my opinion) and made another judgement that there was a consensus to take extreme action: A big mass operation to alter a large number of titles wholesale. Mass editing in the face of plenty of thoughtful opposition — should probably never be done. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon: That RM didn't seem to attract chess editors, and instead attracted people like you & me who check WP:RM occasionally. I'm not saying that things would necessarily have turned out differently, but we don't really know since the subject-matter experts largely didn't show up.

@GümsGrammatiçus: I'm not really the one you need to convince here. If you think that this article should be moved back, file a WP:RM using the instructions there - although with the scanty response to my pings above, I wouldn't get your hopes too high. FWIW, I do think that even if chess variants in general end up lowercased, there is a solid usage argument that this particular variant should still be capitalized. SnowFire (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

As of this writing, on Google Search, "Chess960" returns 228,000 results, "Fischer random" returns 89,200 results and "Chess 960" returns 53,300 results. If we go by the commonly recognizable name, Chess960 is the clear winner based on this metric. This seems to be a good argument in support for the move to Chess960, although it's possible said metric does not reflect recent trend changes. 147.253.138.9 (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Article states, "For example, in some Fischer random chess starting positions White can attack an unprotected black pawn on the first move, whereas in standard chess it takes two moves for White to attack, . . . ." How can it be true to say, "WHITE CAN ATTACK AN UNPROTECTED PAWN ON THE FIRST MOVE"? Since all the pieces besides pawns are in the first row and blocked by pawns from moving (except the knights which can jump over pawns), how can white attack anything on first move? Knights can't reach blacks side on first move. A pawn might be advanced on first move allowing white to move out a bishop or queen to attack on 2nd move, but I can't see how 1st move attack would be possible. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC))

Moving a pawn may open a line, discovering an attack by a queen or bishop. This is in fact a problem that imbalances some starting positions and enables White to force opening play. (So, basically a special case of what Kramnik is quoted as saying in the article. Which is also why I sometimes think it would have been better to promote Capablanca chess as an extension of chess rather than this, but that's just my opinion.) Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the term Chess 9LX is not synonymous with the gamemode as a whole, but rather an explicit reference to the specific Saint Louis Chess Club event (which, incidentally, is being held at the time of writing.) A citation can be seen here: 2019 Champions Showdown: Chess 9LX. The page states: "Chess 9LX is a trademark of the Saint Louis Chess Club, and the name of one of its annual tournaments." This appears to refute the idea that "Chess 9LX" is a fundamental - or widely used - synonym for Fischer random. Unless anyone has objections to this, I will be removing the content that suggests the opposite.

(I was personally convinced that Chess 9LX was a synonym myself, for example as seen here, "The leader of Armenian chess, Levon Aronian, competed with the American Wesley So in the third round of the Chess 9LX—which is another term for Chess 960 or Fischer Random— tournament..." I understand the confusion, in light of that... but I believe I am right in this.)

Kiril kovachev (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

can be under the naming section? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess#Naming Thewriter006 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a massive section in the article that I believe merits removal. There are too many quotes about players' opinions of the variant and no encyclopedic value to including all of them, especially in its own section. While having one or two small quotations within the rest of the article would be alright, having a dozen of opinions is excessive and in opposition to the summary-style we should follow on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixtal (talk • contribs) 09:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

pinging Thewriter006 — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree fundamentally. The variety of quotes by grandmasters are germane to the nature of the article topic itself. (The article topic is a proposed extension-replacement by the inventor to the classic chess game. Both the inventor himself, his invention, and his proposal, have had high controversy. But this has slowly changed since 1996, the introduction year, to current, with much acceptance by grandmasters and adoption by FIDE, the international chess governing body. The angles and insights by grandmasters have distinct bearing on the topic, they differ and sometimes differ subtly, and much would be lost if attempted to be summarized in edited prose. Thus the section of quotations and their relevance.) The blind application of WP protocol here w/ be not only inappropriate but destructive, too. Thanks for consideration. --IHTS (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

p.s. The composition of quotes has been dynamic too, reflecting evolving views; for example, the opinion by former world champion Kasparov that was initially a slight, has been changed to quotes of his particular approval. So the section is not an unending list of quotations. Nor an historical list. Nor, again, a repetitive list. Thanks for consider. --IHTS (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, I understand as a chess player the relevance of some of these players perspectives, but the way it is displayed is just a quote farm. To people that are unfamiliar with these players, the professional scene, or even chess at anything but a basic level the current quote section does them a disservice. We are not explaining the context of why some players enjoy its non opening-based way of playing, for example. Right now the section takes two full screens to read. It is way beyond what would be a beneficial length that increases our readers' understanding of how professional chess players view this variant. As I mentioned in my edit summary when removing it, the quotes as they stand right now provide seemingly trivial opinions that are of interest only to a small population of 960 fans rather than a general reading population. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_endgame#Quotations ?

2 - 'the way it is displayed' --> Ah ok so if you have an issue with the way it is displayed then why not bring it up on talk page or change the way it is displayed? I'm new to Wikipedia, but I think that's better than just REMOVING A WHOLE STACK of quotes that people worked hard to compile. To me doing that would make you in an extremely small minority and then you'd be going against yeah an overwhelming majority so why just remove the quotes without 1st bringing up on talk page? It was a huge waste of time for me to have to undo BOTH edits.

3 - Re the 'general reading population', who but chess or 9LX fans would be reading the 9LX wikipedia page? Sure non-chess and non-9LX fans would be reading the chess page. But I think you'd gotta have some level of interest in chess to bother looking up the 9LX page. Edit: Ah wait...I guess it wouldn't be suited for a general reading population, but it should be suited to a general chess reading population, not just general chess960 reading population. In your opinion, is it suited at least a general chess reading population even if not a general reading population? Also I don't think it has to be general reading population. Should the Borel-Cantelli Lemma page be accessible to a general reading population? (And if so, then...is it?)

4 - 'the section takes two full screens to read. It is way beyond what would be a beneficial length' - How do you know Gasai it is beyond beneficial length?

5 - Also if it is lengthy then why does non-lengthy imply DELETION FO THE ENTIRE THING rather than just deleting some quotes or perhaps creating some subsections?

FYI Btw while I regularly check the revision history of this page, the reason I found out about this HUGE EDIT is that I was searching for that quote by Péter Lékó about sleeping well. It's what a lot of GMs and superGMs saying like Wesley So https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShtUqtUGYSY&t=78s and Matthias Blübaum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kshW8JgNOnI

Btw no offense or anything Ixtal, but how familiar are you with chess / 9LX ? Like what was your peak rapid rating on lichess, and what's your chess experience? https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/wm3enq/comment/ijxgq1b/

Response 1 of 2 - this response is to Ixtal Thewriter006 (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

My particular rating does not matter, Thewriter006, nor does yours or anyone's. For more detail on how non-academic experts (such as highly-ranked chess player) are expected to contribute during content discussions, see Help:Wikipedia_editing_for_non-academic_experts#Giving_and_getting_feedback. For a wider perspective on the wider Wikipedia community's view of credentials, see Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials. Full response to you and IHTS's arguments will be posted later, but I thought this in particular needed addressing. I also would appreciate if you didn't link reddit threads. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It was a guide sub-question. The main question is 'how familiar are you with chess / 9LX?' Thewriter006 (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ixtal, to be honest, am not particularly stuck on the list format here, it's just that, as much as I love English and improving my writing, I don't think am capable of reformatting or reducing to summarized prose without also destroying the content inherent in the quotes, including, at this point, throwing out some and leaving in others. (Other editors, thankfully, have shown to be pretty adept at new quote selection and old quote removal.) Re your posture to service all readers even those w/ basic level of chess, um, readers access articles for different reasons, for e.g. to get a general understanding, or for details. And a reader doesn't need to be "familiar with these players" to appreciate the value of the quotes, "grandmaster" titles conveys sufficiently to them. And I take umbrage w/ your "trivial opinions" remark, the reality is, the views including acceptance and even preference for 960 by grandmasters is what is and will determine the future and ultimate place in history for [this variant of] Western chess. --IHTS (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Another point, WP articles are supposed to be interesting & enjoyable to read. Stripping out the "Views of grandmasters" sec, as you did, results in a chokingly dry technical article of no human interest, except to fans, which you wanted to avoid. --IHTS (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The 1 thing I'd think we need editing here is arrangement like it is the future (aka positive statement eg levon and wesley think it will be) vs it should be the future (aka normative statement eg wesley wants 9LX to replace chess) vs maybe it is the future (eg vidit is not sure) vs merely complimenting it (eg hikaru likes it but doesn't necessarily think 9LX should replace chess). Also wow really God bless you IHTS! Hope to see you maybe in r/chess960 ! :D

P.S. Re 'Thanks for consider.' --> You're really sticking to AGF here? Well I hope so far I've been trying, but well...I guess you can be negligent and still have good faith. Idk.

Response 2 of 2 - this response is to IHTS Thewriter006 (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a really a constructive idea. Involves close interpretation of the quotes, but that probably isn't too hard or out of bounds. --IHTS (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you both stuck to a more concise format for replies, see please the recommendations at Wikipedia:Hold the pepper. You can also use {{tq}} to distinguish quotes of other users, e.g. {{tq|That's a really constructive idea}} becomes That's a really constructive idea. This will help readability. I will now reply to your points one by one.

1. The link to Chess endgame has no bearing over this article's content. I similarly think the use of quotations there is unnecessary and encyclopedic, but that is irrelevant to this particular article.
2. I apologize if I seemed passive-aggressive by deleting the section. Thewriter006 and I have discussed this on their talk page.
3. In your opinion, is it suited at least a general chess reading population even if not a general reading population? Also I don't think it has to be general reading population. Should the Borel-Cantelli Lemma page be accessible to a general reading population? (And if so, then...is it?) I think this article should be suited at minimum to a general chess reading population, yes. However, we should strive to make it as understandable for general readers with little knowledge of chess as possible. Note I do not mean the target audience is an average layman, but rather that if one happens to find this article they should not feel intimidated by the contents. The article is still somewhat too technical in areas where we can clarify it, but that can be discussed at a later point as we continue to improve this article. Regarding the Borel-Cantelli Lemma, I do believe that the article should be accessible to a general reading population to the extent where even if they don't fully understand the mathematics they can understand why the lemma is useful and what it is used for.
4. How do you know Gasai it is beyond beneficial length? I do not understand what Gasai means here, Thewriter006.
5. Also if it is lengthy then why does non-lengthy imply DELETION FO THE ENTIRE THING rather than just deleting some quotes or perhaps creating some subsections? More subsections will probably worsen readability and do not change the fact that the quotes are individually undue for inclusion. That is, do any RS tell us these quotes are of encyclopedic value? Lets see some good practices on using quotes. In Pelé, it says "Among his contemporaries, Dutch star Johan Cruyff stated, "Pelé was the only footballer who surpassed the boundaries of logic." This quote is cited to a FIFA article about what contemporary players said about Pelé, telling us that it is a notable quote about him. The first quote in this article, however, is just cited to a random interview to Carlsen. Do any RS tell us this is a notable quote? Or are we just including it because a GM said it? We currently are doing the later, which is original research as we are determining what is and what is not a notable quote.
6. The main question is 'how familiar are you with chess / 9LX?' Enough to where I can contribute to content discussions on its Wikipedia article.
7. [...] it's just that, as much as I love English and improving my writing, I don't think am capable of reformatting or reducing to summarized prose without also destroying the content inherent in the quotes. Not all the quotes are needed, as many say the same thing but by different people. The best way to preserve the content of the quotes would be to summarize them within prose. For example, instead of having a "views of grandmasters" section, we could have a "Reception" section (see Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections for good practices on this). Sentences like "A number of grandmasters have praised the increased emphasis on intuition and creativity as opposed to the opening-centric and engine-reliant nature of modern competitive chess." This is a much more concise sentence that explains to our reader (of all expertise levels) what the thoughts of the GMs are.
8. And I take umbrage w/ your "trivial opinions" remark I want to clarify I do not believe they are trivial, but as there are no RS saying each quote is notable, they seem to be.

   Grandmasters are subject experts, their opinions don't need secondary sources. --IHTS (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

9. Stripping out the "Views of grandmasters" sec, as you did, results in a chokingly dry technical article of no human interest I heavily disagree.
10. The 1 thing I'd think we need editing here is arrangement like it is the future (aka positive statement eg levon and wesley think it will be) vs it should be the future (aka normative statement eg wesley wants 9LX to replace chess) vs maybe it is the future (eg vidit is not sure) That is synthesis. In other words, (pasting from the OR guideline) Combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source, which is against Wikipedia guidelines.

— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

1 - To me it seems like they're wrong if and only if we're wrong. So why are you editing only our page? Lol. It's like whatchamacallit SLAPP by the RIAA to Joel Tenenbaum or Jammie Thomas?

2 - Not passive-aggressive just sounds like 'I know better either from my chess experience or my wikipedia experience'. Thus, I really wanted to know about the Wikipedia experience. So like ok you clarified it.

3 - Soooo IS IT suited to a general chess reading population even if not a general reading population?

4 - Gasai refers to the anime character 'Yuno Gasai' (Yuno sounds like 'you know')

5 - Ugh...what? I wanna know what warranted the deletion of the entire thing rather than just a few quotes?

6 - Tell us anyway please. Did you get into chess just after queen's gambit? Did you find out 9LX existed only this year? Thewriter006 (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

3. Right now? The article is accessible to an average chess player, but super hard to read for non-chess players. Even then, it has various issues making its readability worse such that even interested chess players will likely not read past the lead and setup sections. We can improve this.

5. Note I didn't say in my response "just a few quotes", but rather summarizing all of them.

6. I will not respond to questions about expertise that seek to gatekeep articles. You do not get to decide what goes into this article or dismiss valid arguments based on rating or experience, Thewriter006. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

3.1 - 'The article is accessible to an average chess player' - So what's the problem?

3.2 - 'but super hard to read for non-chess players.'

3.2A - Why is it super hard to read?

3.2B - Why would non-chess players be reading the 9LX page? Would non-mathematicians (and non-physicists, etc) be reading the Borel-Cantelli page? Thewriter006 (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

4 - Again, how do you know (Gasai) it is beyond beneficial length? Thewriter006 (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

1 - Wait do you or do you not have a problem with the quotes section in the chess endgame page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_endgame#Quotations Thewriter006 (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

6 - Ok about experience, it's about not just credibility but experience. Like so what if we're doing something wrong? Why don't you just focus on Wikipedia articles that you're really interested and experienced in? Were you under the assumption like 'Oh wow no one here really is so familiar with Wikipedia no matter how familiar they were with 9LX' ?

6.1 - I mean, plainly there is someone here highly experienced in both chess and Wikipedia, so what's your continued interest in this matter with the quotations?

6.2 - You don't have to answer about your experience, but your silence, much like chess, would speak for itself. Do you know Gasai what the joke in the previous sentence is? I'm curious to see how familiar you are with chess history / current events.

7 - Btw, something you can nitpick on if you want (assuming you have enough chess experience for this) : I did 'original research' sort of:

7.1 - In the 'Theory' section, I added the Sesse evals thing about 22.22% and 68%.

7.2 - In 'Observations' about castling, I added the chess870 thingy: Everything from 'Unlike in standard chess (...)' up to '(...) compared to the remaining 870 positions (Evaluation is 0.1790).' is all me. Not sure if simple maths counts as original research, but if so, then go ahead and nitpick. I was actually expecting someone to revert or edit it based on original research or something or lack of citation in the sense that they'd have to verify the computations for themselves. But well I guess it's just as ok as, Idk, adding some alternative simple proof of some simple maths theorem that strangely no one has written before. Thewriter006 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

10 - No offense but seriously? 'reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source,' like...

10.1 - What's wrong with filing the following as 'I like 9LX' ?

- 10.1A - "To me, mainly chess is art — that's why I like Fischer Random a lot; there is a lot of creativity." — Wesley So

- 10.1B - "It’s a game I really love (...)" — Levon Aronian

- 10.1C - "I think chess960 is great as it is simply pure intuition and understanding without theory or computers." — Hikaru Nakamura

10.2 - What's wrong with filing the following as 'I like 9LX more than chess' ?

- 10.2A - "My favorite form of chess is actually chess960. (...)" — Wesley So

- 10.2B - "Every chess player's dream" - Levon (not yet in the article. It was in a recent interview. If you're experienced enough, then I think you know Gasai where to find this interview)

- 10.2C - (what I wouldn't file is the above Hikaru quote.)

10.3 - What's wrong with filing the following as 'I think 9LX will replace chess' or '9LX is the future' (where '9LX' refers not to exactly to 9LX but to randomisation in general eg they may be playing chess870 instead of chess960 in the future?

- 10.3A - "(...)I see it as the future of chess." — Levon Aronian

- 10.3B - "With the advancement in computers, I predicted that maybe 50 years from now, there won't be anymore high-level professional chess. Thewriter006 (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It is clear we won't find agreement on this. I will file an RfC soon proposing changes to the section. Cheers — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 07:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I edited the quotes section. Thewriter006 (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

11 - btw, why again complete deletion instead of like moving to or proposing to move to wikiquotes or something? again...it's the BRD cunningham's law thing?

12 - wait what if no 1 was around to like correct you or something? Thewriter006 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, obviously I'm very late to this discussion. This is my first glance at the section full of quotes, and I'm not interested. Quite a few of them are like testimonials, i.e. some player has got his appearance fee for playing in a Chess960 tournament, and he's saying how great Chess960 is. Kramnik reinforces this when he says that some other masters have complained to him "in private" about Chess960 -- if they complain in public, they're passing up chances to earn a living. But even aside from the WP:PROMO angle, what use do I have for most of these quotes? Do we need a bunch of quotes in Chess? Compare with Pickleball, another relatively new sport that's a variant of old sports. Who would be interested in a bunch of quotes about it? Bruce leverett (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Re a bunch of quotes in Chess, chess isn't a radical new thing, or controversial, or a variant that is potential redirection of the trajectory of the base game. So the compare seems apples & oranges. Don't know enough re Pickleball (whether or not is a controversial potential redress of the base game). --IHTS (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Not quite apples and oranges. I think red apples and green apples. Or maybe 9LX is like pineapple on pizza: A red apple/The pizza is a well-established thing. And then green apples/pineapple on pizza are like the not so popular thing. Or something. Thewriter006 (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Started the sec based on Gligoric's 2002 book when FRC was fresher and quotes were purely & sincerely reflecting on the variant w/o the poison of money. Suspected poisoned quotes of course s/b removed. --IHTS (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah btw I notice some Gligoric's 2002 book quotes don't quite have years there. I just put them under before 2010. Thewriter006 (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair questions.

1 - Chess is already well-established. No need for those quotes. These quotes explain the need for 9LX. Pickleball isn't trying to change anything exactly, is it? 9LX is trying to fix a perceived problem in chess. Similarly, we wouldn't have quotes for anything like say softball for baseball I guess. If there's some guy named Phisher Ransom who thinks baseball has a problem, then they can make Phisher baseball and explain why and then there'll be pro baseball players explaining why they dis/agree. Here, there's a huge dichotomy. Grandmasters, particularly superGMs, wish they could play 9LX instead of chess. Levon acknowledges this too. 9LX is the 'chess player's chess'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2CjJa78c24&t=49s Yet chess is still the standard. Why? Apparently, club players/amateurs really like openings. See https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/22318/why-isnt-chess960-the-standard and https://www.reddit.com/comments/xjg3li/comment/ipb2t0u/?context=1

2 - Do you have an issue with the chess endgame quotes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_endgame#Quotations I think they exist for the same purpose like to explain to new players why they should study the endgame. Thewriter006 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure that Wikipedia is the place to explain the "need" for the new game. When someone types "Chess 960" in the search box, most likely they don't know what it is; at least, that is the kind of readership that most of Wikipedia is written for. Advanced topics like comparisons of game X with game Y are for more specialized articles, or not for Wiki at all.

But granting that there might be a need to explain the appeal of Chess 960 compared with chess, I would think that it should take about 2-3 sentences, each point being supported by an appropriate source, which may well involve one of the above quotes. This would be easier on readers than the bag of quotes itself. We are tertiary, so our job is to assess and distill these secondary sources.

Digression -- note that there was a transition from old chess to new chess in the late 1400's, which you can read about in Chess. New chess had the "mad queen" and a few other features, and it took the chess world by storm (relatively speaking) -- every place that it arrived, within about a generation people stopped playing the old chess and ever afterwards played the new chess. At least that's how I remember it from reading Murray. So chess is "well-established" now, but back then ...

Thanks for bringing the quote section of Chess endgame to my attention. I have managed to miss or ignore it in spite of putting my fingerprints all over the article. There is also a quotation subsection of the section about rook endgames. If the purpose of the larger quote section is just to explain the need for studying endgames, then it has the same problems as the quotation section here -- we should not just be throwing an undigested bunch of quotations at the reader. But I have to say, the quotation from Capablanca is well-known in its own right, and the joke "all rook endgames are drawn" is even better known. Wikipedia is where "chess canon" lives, and that includes both those quotations. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

FRC was introduced to "fix" chess (the memorization issue), to "save" chess, to be the new norm. That is the reason it exists at all, and going up against classical chess is a radical deal, so I can't see any article de-emphasizing same as accurate or even informative. --IHTS (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Rather than argue this point, I'll say that if you can write a succinct and concise summary, with the usual Wikipedia conventions about sourcing, then the question of where it "really belongs" will not be hard to answer, if it arises at all. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned, w/ not be able. --IHTS (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

IHTS, what do you mean exactly by 'I can't see any article de-emphasizing same as accurate or even informative' please ? Thewriter006 (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Reducing the GM quotes, per Ixtal to "one or two small quotations", or per Bruce to 2–3 sentences each w/ a ref possibly incorporating a quote, seems to me diluting and even obscuring the current status of FRC what it was intended to be & is currently evolving to be, a radical evolutionary change to the trajectory of the classic game. There's obviously some fascination along the way, and controversy too, and all of that w/ be missing from the article if either suggestion were adopted IMO. --IHTS (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Does 'w/' mean 'would' ? Thewriter006 (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Used 'w/' to = "with". (Sorry for confusion.) --IHTS (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

the 2nd w/ i think means would instead of with? 'all of that w/ be missing from the article' Thewriter006 (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Right, "with"/"would" depending on context. Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

anyhoo it looks like our side has finally won. cheers indeed. pleasure doing business with you. thank you, God bless you, and happy valentine's day! Thewriter006 (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Shall we mention the results of the Chess 9LX of St Louis for the past, what, 4 tournaments now? Thewriter006 (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Added now. Lemme know what you think. Thewriter006 (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

If we do talk about the 9LX results of St Louis, then I think they'd be under 'History'. However the name '9LX' comes in 'naming' which is after 'history' soooo...? Thewriter006 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Did. Lemme know what you think. Thewriter006 (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)