Knowledge Base Wiki

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chess High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

While I understand the desire to illustrate to the reader who the prospective players of the rating qualifiers are, is not the table pretty much original research, coupled with the use of live ratings, one of the big things to avoid in this WikiProject? I know there is a page by Martin Bennedik which calculates it already. It is citable and is perhaps a better alternative. Jkmaskell (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove the "average rating" column because that's WP:Original Research. The other two columns ("current live rating" and "estimated average") are taken direct from the respective sources, so they're not WP:Original Research. I guess technically neither chess2700 not Martin Bennedik are WP:Reliable Sources, but so long as it's noted that it's Bennedik's calculation, I think it enhances the page so it should stay, as per WP:IAR. Adpete (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put a note saying the table is based on Bennedik's calculation. While it's not a "reliable source" per wikipedia definition, no reasonable person would doubt its veracity and it can always be verified against official FIDE ratings. However the table should reflect Bennnedik's work only, and not contain any WP:SYNTH. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Broadcast restrictions" seems to be unnecessarily long. Is this really that relevant to the 2016 World Chess Championship? I don't think so. Calistemon (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It looks like an analysis of a legal case, which seems out of place here. (And possible original research in parts as well.) It would be fine to trim it now, but I think it would also be OK to leave it for a few weeks and review it later. At present the events are too recent to provide enough perspective. When the Candidates is finished it should be more apparent what is important to report in this article. Quale (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of issues with this page. Due to the very excessive detail on "restrictions" or controversy issues I am getting more and more concerned about whether this article is keeping with NPOV and keeping it balanced. Yes, we may not like what AGON decided with regard to broadcasting but they do own the rights and it's up to them. The technical difficulties experienced by other broadcasters aren't necessarily related to AGON's decision, something that does appear to be implied through some of the additions on this article.Jkmaskell (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the standings for Candidates not in order ? Karjakin has 1 and a half points and he should be right there with Anand, yet he is in the middle. 94.155.238.11 (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its a pain to switch the lines around each round. When the tournament is complete, im certain itll be re-organised to reflect positions. It doesnt really have to be correct right now. Jkmaskell (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't it be based on alphabetical order or rating ? I'm just curious if the names are randomized. Thanks. 94.155.238.11 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think its a big problem. Looks random to me. The first column in the table is the ranking of the player, so its not like the viewer has to work it out. I do see your point though. Ill see what I can do. Jkmaskell (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing how sortable tables works out, it simply makes the rest of the table look weird, messing up the crosstable. When the tournament is over the crosstable etc will be straightened out so it makes more sense. What is there at the moment is absolutely fine.Jkmaskell (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's absolutely fine. I was just curious if they were sorted by something or not. Maybe every rest day the column can get sorted based on the actual standings ? Once every 3-4 days. Regards 94.155.238.11 (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standings could possibly use the newish Module:Sports table instead of the very dated wikitable format. It might be worth a try adapting the module to chess. Calistemon (talk) 07:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For an example see below:

Pos	Team	Pld	Pts		KAR	ARO	ANA	GIR	CAR	SVI	NAK	TOP
1	Sergey Karjakin (RUS) (2760)	3	2		—			½		½	1
2	Levon Aronian (ARM) (2786)	3	2			—	½	½				1
3	Vishwanathan Anand (IND) (2762)	3	2			½	—		½			1
4	Anish Giri (NED) (2793)	3	1.5		½	½		—	½
5	Fabiano Caruana (USA) (2794)	3	1.5				½	½	—		½
6	Peter Svidler (RUS) (2757)	3	1.5		½					—	½	½
7	Hikaru Nakamura (USA) (2790)	3	1		0				½	½	—
8	Veselin Topalov (BUL) (2780)	3	0.5			0	0			½		—

The fact that it says team instead of player is not great but this may be changeable. The great advantage of this module is that you don't need to move results around. All you need to do is change the ranking in the the row near the top it it does it automatically. Calistemon (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. If it won't be a big problem to do that, I think it gives a clearer idea on the standings. I don't know, I think it might be just me, but the standings, right now, looks like a mess lol I mean rank is random, rating is random, players aren't even alphabetically sorted, results are random, it doesn't seem right when you look at it 94.155.238.11 (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS - How are the players sorted if they are tied ? 94.155.238.11 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Qed237 has added a parameter to be able to change the team column to player. As to the standings I took them of the official website but I don't know what they use for tie breakers if two players are on equal points, especially if they havn't played each other yet. Calistemon (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pos	Player	Pld	Pts		KAR	ARO	ANA	GIR	CAR	SVI	NAK	TOP
1	Sergey Karjakin (RUS) (2760)	3	2		—			½		½	1
2	Levon Aronian (ARM) (2786)	3	2			—	½	½				1
3	Vishwanathan Anand (IND) (2762)	3	2			½	—		½			1
4	Anish Giri (NED) (2793)	3	1.5		½	½		—	½
5	Fabiano Caruana (USA) (2794)	3	1.5				½	½	—		½
6	Peter Svidler (RUS) (2757)	3	1.5		½					—	½	½
7	Hikaru Nakamura (USA) (2790)	3	1		0				½	½	—
8	Veselin Topalov (BUL) (2780)	3	0.5			0	0			½		—

There is a possibility to give two players same positions, which could be used when there are no current tiebreakers. Just use |pos_TTT= (where TTT is the players shortening). For example:

Pos	Player	Pld	Pts		KAR	ARO	ANA	GIR	CAR	SVI	NAK	TOP
1	Sergey Karjakin (RUS) (2760)	3	2		—			½		½	1
1	Levon Aronian (ARM) (2786)	3	2			—	½	½				1
1	Vishwanathan Anand (IND) (2762)	3	2			½	—		½			1
4	Anish Giri (NED) (2793)	3	1.5		½	½		—	½
4	Fabiano Caruana (USA) (2794)	3	1.5				½	½	—		½
4	Peter Svidler (RUS) (2757)	3	1.5		½					—	½	½
7	Hikaru Nakamura (USA) (2790)	3	1		0				½	½	—
8	Veselin Topalov (BUL) (2780)	3	0.5			0	0			½		—

If you need any help with module, just let me know. Qed237 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One player plays against every other player twice but there is not enough space in the results column, and you can't tell if they had the white pieces or the black pieces. Do you think this can be changed ? 94.155.238.11 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's how it is on the official website, so im not sure how they are gonna do it either 94.155.238.11 (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why all this wheel reinventing? We have plenty of pages we could model a crosstable for a double round tournament from, e.g. AVRO 1938 chess tournament. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was raised as an issue that the original table was very difficult to update. I don't know about chess articles but any other competition articles have long ago stopped using wikitable for this kind of purpose and moved on to Fb templates and now to Module:Sports table. Calistemon (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to the original question about results and colours, here is an option:

Pos	Player	Pld	Pts		ANA	ARO	KAR	GIR	CAR	SVI	NAK	TOP
1	Vishwanathan Anand (IND) (2762)	3	2		—	½			½			1
1	Levon Aronian (ARM) (2786)	3	2		½	—		½				1
3	Sergey Karjakin (RUS) (2760)	3	2				—	½		½	1
4	Anish Giri (NED) (2793)	3	1.5			½	½	—	½
4	Fabiano Caruana (USA) (2794)	3	1.5		½			½	—		½
6	Peter Svidler (RUS) (2757)	3	1.5				½			—	½	½
7	Hikaru Nakamura (USA) (2790)	3	1				0		½	½	—
8	Veselin Topalov (BUL) (2780)	3	0.5		0	0				½		—

Would this suit? Calistemon (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this suits perfectly. Thanks for your effort Calistemon! 94.155.238.11 (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I really don't like this new table with the black and white boxes. I find it ugly and hard on the eyes, but that is of course a matter of taste and I can certainly live with it. But more importantly: I had made the "old" wikitable sortable, only to come back and find it reverted by an anonoymous(!) user. I don't see the problem, and the reverter clearly had not understood how sortable tables work. Why not just make the table sortable, so the rows don't have to be moved around manually? Apparently you can't make this new "sports table" sortable (as far as I can see), but it seems to me that the best solution would be to keep the old style table and just make it sortable... dllu (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to further illustrate my point: There is a solution to using sortable tables without messing up the rows and columns. The "trick" is to have the columns 1-8 "named" after a specific player rather than a number (if that makes sense). To see an example look at the 1962 Candidates:

5th Candidates Curaçao 1962

		PET	KER	GEL	FIS	KOR	BEN	TAL	FIL	Total
1	Tigran Petrosian (USSR)	–	½½½½	½½½½	½1½½	½½11	½½1½	11½−	½11½	17½
2=	Paul Keres (USSR)	½½½½	–	½½½½	0½1½	½½1½	1110	1½1−	½11½	17
2=	Efim Geller (USSR)	½½½½	½½½½	–	11½0	½½1½	½½½1	½11−	½11½	17
4	Bobby Fischer (USA)	½0½½	1½0½	00½1	–	010½	01½1	½1½−	1½1½	14
5	Viktor Korchnoi (USSR)	½½00	½½0½	½½0½	101½	–	½½½0	10½−	1111	13½
6	Pal Benko (USA)	½½0½	0001	½½½0	10½0	½½½1	–	10½−	011½	12
7=	Mikhail Tal (USSR)	00½−	0½0−	½00−	½0½−	01½−	01½−	–	10½−	7
7=	Miroslav Filip (TCH)	½00½	½00½	½00½	0½0½	0000	100½	01½−	–	7

I made the table sortable (it's not in the original article) and it seems to work just fine. To me, this would be a better (and much better looking) solution than the "new style" sports table... dllu (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The white and black table is really ugly. I don't see the point of making the columns sortable in your crosstable, what advantage does that give? Quale (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is huge, and it's not good that article text is collapsed. I'd suggest moving the whole candidates to its own 2016 article. It's certainly warranted with all the broadcast issues. -Koppapa (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. The amount of detail being added makes this very necessary, though that part about Anand risking forfeit isn't quite as serious as it sounded. Looking at the live footage, Anand was on the playing stage about a second after and was in his seat about 5 seconds after that with a child starting their clock. Topalov wasn't in his seat either. But does it really matter? Caruana didn't complain. A non-story given a full block of text. Jkmaskell (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's original research. Chessbase didn't even mention it. Then get this candidates stuff moved to a yearly article. The collapsed text si horrible, one can't use the toc even. -Koppapa (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the official commentators were again not always in the mix on move sequences that had occurred" I don't have much idea what this is supposed to mean. "Not always in agreement"? uh.. I would change it myself, but have no idea what to change it to.

nice article though. this candidates will be remembered for a long time. and not for the chess. 110.20.158.134 (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where and when is the 2016 World Championship Match being played? Shouldn't this be on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles (talk • contribs) 04:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the effort being put in to provide context and detail for the article but I think delving into the history of the WC venue is straying from the subject a fair bit. The focus needs to be on the World Championship match. I would suggest the removal of the whole second paragraph from "Venue announcement". Jkmaskell (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too huge in my opinion, with extreme amounts of detail. Most of the "planning" section can simply be eliminated - they happened and they're sourced, but they're not important - and the same goes for much of the "match preparation". Within the game sections themselves, sentences such as "Although Karjakin departed the playing area first, he was made to wait since the interviewer wanted them in the opposite order, causing some distress after a fatiguing battle" are simply irrelevant. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead with some major trimming. Banedon (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's to long. Too many sections. Also timeline and the sections are redundant a bit. Broadcast battle should be in (trimmed) because that was a thing involving courts. Planning, venues, sponsors are to detailed for sure. -Koppapa (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with cleaning the sections. Here's a stable link to the article before I deleted lots of sections, if anyone feels some of the deleted sections should remain: [1]. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I broke a lot of references unfortunately. No time to clear that up right now; if someone else can do it (stable link above) please go ahead. Thanks! Banedon (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be making this kind of editorial comment, and gms' twitters are not a reliable source, especially when the intention is clearly humorous. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this live coverage of games is the most extreme form of recentism possible and using a chessgames live page as a reference for a "superior position" is laughably bad. I agree with other comments about the work on this article. Much like other articles about major events (Candidates for example), lots of enthusiasm bunging in lots of info about minutae, but the quality of the finished product is less than it could be were it to be properly copy-written. Jkmaskell (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are way too many citations to twitter. I am just going to remove them on sight from now on, only thing you can cite twitter for is "X said 'Y' on twitter". MaxBrowne (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you guys, I will help to get rid of POV stuff! ChessFan64 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think we edit conflicted while doing it - feel free to revert! Banedon (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the ages are listed, both for the players and for the Candidates. Ratings and Federations make sense, but age? ChessFan64 (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see why this is on the page. Why not just give the results, and the link to the page for the Candidates? It seems to be that previous World Championship pages did not separate out the Candidates, and so included all preceding information too. ChessFan64 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the candidates tournaments/matches and interzonals for previous world championship cycles should have separate articles, I even wrote one for the 1948 Saltsjobaden Interzonal, but it would be a lot of work to get all this done. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Interzonals and Candidates should have separate articles. I think the first thing to do is to expand coverage in the championship articles, then WP:SPINOUT when the sections are large enough. Thanks for creating Interzonal tournament, Saltsjöbaden 1948. Quale (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

specially with carlsen losing. when anand lost, the next championship was held the next year even though it is rarely held every year. 84.212.111.156 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the problems they have finding sponsors, no chance. -Koppapa (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair back then the cycle timed well and Anand could join the Candidates a handful of months after Chennai. There is no Candidate's field for the loser of this match to join as per regulations, so there will definitely be a wait. WC doesn't get automatic rematch anymore and challenges don't exist. Jkmaskell (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that all the information about the entire Agon move censorship controversy has been removed, apart from a cryptic reference to Agon's "new broadcast model". There is NO mention anywhere I can see of the following pieces of information relevant to the match:

1. That Agon attempted to censor the moves of the WCC 2016 (then later allowed live move transmission on other websites, but only through the embeddable Agon transmission widget and only with the websites forbidden to issue their own independent live commentary) 2. That sites such as Chess24 ignored Agon's legal threats and broadcasted the moves 3. That Agon sued Chess24 and ChessGames in a US court for $4.5 million and lost (https://chess24.com/en/read/news/us-judge-agrees-with-chess24-on-chess-moves) 4. That Agon's attempted censorship caused a great controversy in the chess world which many strong and famous players commented on 5. That Agon attempted to censor the live footage of the players 6. That the footage censorship also generated controversy

I know that this information was in the article. I even wrote and sourced some of it. But now I return the article to the article and I find that it has been discreetly removed. As this information has been repeatedly removed and re-added, I very seriously suspect that employee(s) of Agon or other people with vested interests in protecting Agon's public image are working on this article to remove the information I listed above.

We should make sure that we have all this information in the article. There are citations for all this information on multiple chess news sites, the most notable being Chess24 and Chessbase (I don't think Chess24 saying "Agon sued us and lost" is an unreliable source). I would suggest making a brief reference in the header of the article, such as "The match and its leadup were dogged by controversy as Agon attempted and failed to force websites to refrain from broadcasting the moves of the games live with independent commentary in order to promote their own exclusive pay-for-view live broadcast. Agon also did not release a free broadcast (live or otherwise) of the footage of the players playing the match. In comparison, Agon authorised live transmission of the moves and footage in the 2013 and 2014 World Championship matches."

We should also make a new top-level (because it has continued past the lead-up to the match) section and call it something like "Agon broadcast controversy". We can put all the relevant in-depth information about the controversy which I have listed above into this section, where it will all be easy to find and read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.50.146 (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree i should be mentioned. It was deleteted completly when the article was trimmed down. I'd probably call the section broadcast (talk about GMs caommentating, languages, viewership, cost) and mention it there.-Koppapa (talk)

I removed the information and it's not because I want to protect Agon's public image or anything like that, but rather because the article was really big before I trimmed it down (see discussions above). The stable version before I removed most of the information is available here: [2]. If you think any of the material removed should be reinserted, feel free to add it. Banedon (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a big story, make a separate article (of course with a paragraph or so summarising it and linking to it). I suspect most people don't care and just want to read about the chess. The version which Banedon culled is much too long. Adpete (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the organisation / sponsorship information out of the lead, into an "organization and location" subsection. This article should be in "In The News" after the match is complete, and I think it's important to have a lead which is interesting to the lay reader. Most people don't care about the organiser or the prizemoney, so it doesn't belong in the lead. Adpete (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a LOT of press on the final position of the final tie break, and I suspect it's destined to become famous. So I've added it to the lead. In both of my browsers it takes up no extra space - it sits in white space below the infobox and to the right of the lead. If in some browsers it makes the article really ugly, feel free to remove it. But I think it adds something. Adpete (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not typical for these articles and feels like duplicating content since it's already present in the normal place further in the article but as you say, it is filling up white space. I wonder if theres a sensible way of tackling the long contents list, condensing it? Jkmaskell (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOC limit does what you want. I'm not sure whether to add it or not, but I won't stop anyone who does. Adpete (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a bad idea, per Jkmaskell. It's not like the position exemplifies the match or anything, there were plenty of critical positions and this particular position only arose because 1) tie-break and 2) Karjakin was forced to play for a win. Banedon (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. That position is getting coverage even in mainstream press, so I think it's appropriate to mention and show it in the lead. It is duplicating content, but maybe the diagram later in the article could show another interesting position from that game, or show the position a few moves before the final one. ColinClark (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree w/ Jkmaskell and Banedon, it's a bad idea, and it's duplicative. It is also "unencyclopedic"/WP:WEASEL/WP:OR (ala "Hey! You just gotta see this!"). If the position is as important in RLs as is said here, then put it in its proper place -- its own article (ala Deep Blue versus Kasparov, 1996, Game 1). Last & least, the convention of sticking a "for-interest" diag in lead of match article, has no WP precedent (and no wonder). (Because out-of-place, it could even be seen as possible software/text-rendering bug.) --IHTS (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As an alternative to putting any diag in the lead, a single sentence could be added to last para in the lead about it, w/ an intra-article wlink to that game section. (Along w/ similar text plus a supporting ref, at the sec.) --IHTS (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a specific suggestion (i.e. sentence to add to lead final paragraph), or similar:

    The final tie-break game concluded with a surprising queen sacrifice by Carlsen which sparked much commentary.

    --IHTS (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

are we going to mention that the queen sac is NECESSARY like any other move is necessarily completely losing and not merely drawish or slightly losing? Thewriter006 (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no unless it's a major part of the story. It's quite common for moves to be forced since the alternatives are completely losing; we don't need to emphasize those. Banedon (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]