Talk:Bongcloud Attack

Proposed Deletion

The bongcloud attack, while definitely a joke, is a real chess opening that returns over 10,000 results on google, with grandmasters playing it and theory written for it. It's worthy of an article. It's less obscure than many other chess topics with articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7c36:3000:965:a3b2:fe83:2f97 (talk) 01:07, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

The Template:Old prod documentation states that the template is used to identify that a page was previously WP:PRODed and failed to delete. This page is not currently being proposed for deletion. AviationFreak💬 01:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Silly but true

The game between Carlsen and Nakamura really was the "Bongcloud Counter-Gambit" according to the joke pdf about the opening. The "hotbox" nonsense is undocumented and just goofy vandalism. It really doesn't make any difference, though. The entire opening is a gag, but it has occurred in genuine online tournaments between top professionals (including the world champion) for serious money.--72.180.62.216 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing. While it's stupid to expect good sourcing on this joke opening, I haven't been able to find any evidence that a member of Chess.com came up with the "Bongcloud" title. So I'm eliminating the unsourced assertion in the article.--72.180.62.216 (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of the "Hotbox Variation" claim, which so far as I know is (as someone else comments above) just goofy vandalism, but someone else immediately added it back. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but I've added a [citation needed]. For the avoidance of doubt, it refers to the "dubbed the Hotbox Variation" business, not to the actual Carlsen-Nakamura game which is a matter of public record. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is the chess.com user that created it - Lenny Bongcloud: https://www.chess.com/member/lenny_bongcloud. He plays racing kings every game, trying to reach the other side of the board, refusing to actually play a game of chess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2340:B034:998C:4D77:919C:5F3E (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't prove that he created it or that it's named after him. You would need to show a reliable source that says that.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Check out this thread on Chess.com where they apparently name the opening after him: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-life-and-times-of-lennybongcloud---and-ratings Jchook (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the Hotbox issue with just referring the position with the "Double Bongcloud" which appears to pull up far more google search results. Also the are at least a dozen lichess studies that refer to it as the double bongcloud, to which I added a few links. I think this solution is reasonable~~[[User:BunsenBurn] (talk)~~ — Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the repeated insertions of the "Lenny Bongcloud" claim as it is sourced only to his chess.com profile, which is not a reliable source.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Since both the reference of the name to cannabis smoking and the origin from Chess.com user Lenny Bongcloud are widely known and believed theories but also both lack solid evidence and it is unlikely that there will be evidence for either theory I propose that the article explains that there are two theories both without solid evidence. Einliterflasche (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone, anywhere, written about the second theory outside of chess.com and other online chess forums? That's what I would like to know. I at least managed to find a Newsweek article on the first theory. P-K3 (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Not that I knew but I do not consider an online article that has likely been written in a rather short period of time ( https://www.newsweek.com/authors/ed-browne ) more trustworthy than a post on a forum that is more than 12 years old also given that the reporter of the article didn't provide any sources (at least as far as I know) and maybe even got the information from this article which would result in circular reasoning.Einliterflasche (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

A forum post, no matter how old, will nearly always be less reliable than something published in a news article. News articles are written by professionals who are under editorial standards, meaning they can't just spout whatever nonsense they want. WP:UGC outlines this idea. AviationFreak💬 16:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes but in this situation the reporter is likely to got the information from this Wikipedia article given the short amount of time between other published and that the only published information about it (that we can find) before the news article was published was this wikipedia article. That would result in circular reasoning and is why I don't think the newspaper is solid evidence for the theory. I requested the source of information at the newsweek website but didn't yet get an answer. Until solid proof for either theory is provided we should simply wright the truth: there are two widely believed theories but both lack solid evidence. Einliterflasche (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Every high school teacher, much less professional reporter, can tell you that Wikipedia is user-generated and therefore is not useful for reporting. I think the current wording of the article is factually based and cannot be reasonably contested. AviationFreak💬 16:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I see that the "Hotbox" thing now has a reference, namely that Guardian article. Anyone want to bet on whether the Guardian writer got that information from this Wikipedia page? I think this is pure citogenesis. The only references to that name I can find online are (1) this page, (2) the Guardian article which I bet got the name from here, (3) one thread on a chess forum where some random user calls it that (no indication of why), and (4) various obviously secondary things -- Wikipedia scrapes, pages reproducing the Guardian article with various words randomly replaced by synonyms, etc. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I'm quite convinced this is citogenesis as well. But, citogensis of a strange form – now that Wikipedia and news outlets are giving it this name, so are some people (many hits for the term being used on forums in the last few days). It was fake when it was originally added, but through the wonders of Wikipedia, that fact is now real. Odd stuff. Volteer1 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see this discussion or know the term had previously been used when I added it from The Guardian source. If this is citogenesis then it is an odd case because from whatever origin, the term is now called that I guess. But I would support removal and have done so for now (as it's a self-revert, not a revert of somebody else) as this doesn't appear to already have sustained and widespread usage (... which could well change in a few months time), so it's not a hugely significant term just because some people are getting it from either Wikipedia or The Guardian. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, why is the Forum thread not evidence? 49.178.12.230 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:User generated content is not acceptable as a source for Wikipedia as it is inherently unreliable.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming you've read the thread and are aware that it's not people making historical claims, it's literally just... the thread where the opening was named. I understand why the former needs to be kept out of Wikipedia, but the latter seems... kind of essential to cover literally any internet-related topic at any level of depth. 49.178.64.73 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

If whatever forum thread is significant (extremely unlikely proposition, but anyway), it will be reported on by a reliable secondary source. And we can then cite that secondary source which reports on this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The origin of the name is inherently significant (if this Bongcloud is notable, which perhaps it isn't), and it's factually true -- as you can literally, go see for yourself -- that that's where it was named; so no, it's not "extremely unlikely" that the thread is significant (again, unless you believe it's extremely unlikely that the Bongcloud is notable). I really do appreciate Wikipedia's recognition that the average person is often not qualified to contribute original research, but in the case of claims which can be trivially verified ("here is a group of people literally naming it, you can see them naming it here"), this starts to get a bit silly. Especially when some of the "reliable" sources that do get cited are often news outlets written by journalists no more or less qualified than anyone here, and who frankly are probably not particularly motivated to research the naming of a gimmick opening used in a handful of Twitch games. 49.178.9.225 (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, because nobody's willing to actually engage with the nature of the source, erroneously treating it as a secondary source that is capable of factual error, I checked policy on primary sources for myself; sadly, the nays have it. Because the thread is not "published" -- because Wikipedia's primary source policy fundamentally fails to recognize that historical internet documents don't require specialist research to establish providence, unlike traditional physical historical documents -- the thread indeed cannot be cited. The funny part is that if this page were a subsection of the Chess.com article (not impossible to imagine, as an on-site meme with broader-reaching popularity), the thread would probably be allowed as WP:ABOUTSELF (on my reading, at least). 49.178.71.69 (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Doubly wrong. We do not link the origin of the name to a forum thread because that, in addition to being WP:UGC, would also be WP:SYNTH; and because WP:PRIMARY explicitly excludes us making interpretations of primary sources. In addition, we need external sources to establish whether that is a significant fact or just the opinion of a few likely non-neutral persons. If a secondary source makes a link to the relevant place, then we can use it. ABOUTSELF would be someone or some organisation writing about themselves (say, for ex., Carlsen saying he was born in Norway). The other exception would be if the source met the criteria of WP:SPS, which requires that "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that the preview of this article shows an empty chess board and don't know how to fix it. Can someone with more experience please fix that?Einliterflasche (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

How are you viewing it? I'm on a desktop and I checked IE, Chrome and Edge and it's fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Brave Browser (based on chrome) and mobile app. I mean the image that pops up when hovering over the link to this article while being on another page. Einliterflasche (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Einliterflasche: The preview image is based on the first image used in the article, which in this case is the base chessboard image (the chessboard template works by adding other, smaller images for pieces, which are overlaid on the base image). I don't know that there's any way to fix this, but I don't think it's a major concern - Just about every chess opening article has the same preview image (Sicilian Defense, Scotch Opening, Italian Game, etc.). AviationFreak💬 16:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the many limitations of our chess interface. It's not specific to this article and can't be fixed with the technical tools we have at the moment. — Bilorv (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's a (Norweigan) source for "Lenny Bongcloud": https://www.aftenposten.no/sport/sjakk/i/eKOKGy/carlsen-fikk-latterkrampe-bringer-sjakken-i-vanry-mener-sjakktopp, though it seems to be claiming that either Lenny or bong smoke in general are candidate origins. Volteer1 (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Short's comments

@RandomCanadian: it seems we are agreed that The Guardian suggests that Short might have made the comment "insult to chess" in regards to the Bongcloud, but the text you are adding says: English grandmaster Nigel Short even dubbed the opening an "insult to chess". Other than the sensationalising in the phrasing "Short even dubbed the opening..." (presupposes a moral judgement: neutral would be "Short dubbed the opening"), the problem is that the journalist did not say, Short said that ..., but Short himself appeared to describe (emphasis mine). As such you are attributing a potentially negative comment about a living person without sufficient sourcing. My objection is not on grounds of synthesis in that the journalist is violating synthesis (you're right that such a thing would not make sense to say), but simply in making a claim in a manner that does not faithfully represent any reliable source I am aware of. Please either rephrase the text in line with what the source says (e.g. The Guardian's XYZ interpreted Short's comment "..." as likely referring to the Bongcloud) or remove it. — Bilorv (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, something like "The Guardian interpreted Short's comment as likely referring to the Bongcloud" looks to be a more appropriate summarization of the line in the Guardian piece, if The Guardian thought it was an unequivocal statement of fact they would've referred to it as such. Volteer1 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian is usually reliable enough to not require attribution for most subjects. They're making the judgement that Short's tweet refers to the Bongcloud - in an article about the Bongcloud; in regards to a comment made after a game involving the Bongcloud. Looking at the twitter thread and Short's own later comments (this analysis we could theoretically cite, he's enough of a subject matter expert) it's rather clear he is referring to the Bongcloud (if he is reluctant to name it). There's also [1] which says it quite explicitly, without the "apparently". Considering that Short also suggested that the opening was "match-fixing"; suggesting further 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5! "in anticipation of the pre-move 2...Ke7."; seems rather clear cut to me (and well "insult to chess" is rather mild compared to the more dubious allegation of match-fixing; which of course we don't include). Secondary sources such as the Guardian reporting on it seems to be enough to establish significance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

With that source it seems fine. Volteer1 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Insider is published by Business Insider, which is RSP dubious. However, the Tweet mentioning 2. Ke2?? is good enough for me. I'd like that Tweet (for verifiability) and The Guardian (for significance) cited. But I have to say that The Guardian is usually reliable enough to not require attribution for most subjects seems to ignore literally everything I said. The Guardian did not state, but suggested that Short was referring to the Bongcloud. You need attribution when referring to speculation rather than fact. It's not ipso facto obvious from the base Tweet as it could refer to any number of things (Nakamura's Sodium Attack usage, Rosen's Englund Gambit etc.) and inferring "it was referring to this because of this most recent event" is original research, but I did miss the later Tweets that make that not the case.

As for the "analysis", it's all an extended joke which I just don't think is of any particular value, though I think it is policy-possible if there was consensus to. — Bilorv (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Reading rapidly the discussions, BI seems to be more of a "case by case basis" than immediate "dubious". In this case this seems a bona fide report about chess and esports (notably as a result of the pandemic). Agree that it's all an extended joke, though of course it has gotten significant coverage, mostly because GMs are humans and humans occasionally like having a laugh. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The Fischer stuff doesn't belong

The Telegraph source makes no mention at all of the openings played; the ChessBase source mentions the openings but not the name "bongcloud". Further, contemporary sources on the "bongcloud" do not make the link with the "Fischer" troll (who was almost certainly running an engine). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The "almost certainly running an engine" is original research unless you can provide a source. ChessBase wouldn't be able to mention the name "bongcloud" if it hadn't been established, but "Background" is about the history of usage rather than just the name (e.g. the first time the Scandinavian was played was the first time 1. e4 d5 was played, not the first time someone called it the Scandinavian) and early Ke2 and Kf2 moves are what characterises this opening. We can remove the Telegraph source if you want. Maybe add something like "The opening can be used to avoid opening theory; for instance, [this example]." — Bilorv (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no prohibition on "original research" on talk pages... anyway Friedel reached the same conclusion, that he was running an engine. If you're going to include all the 1.f3 2.Kf2 3.Ke3 stuff played by the ICC Fischer troll you'd have to redefine the topic of the article, which is specifically the 1.e4 e5 2.Ke2 sequence. Also, no source makes the connection between the ICC Fischer troll and the silly twich streamer trend called the "Bongcloud", making this WP:SYNTH. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It says in the lead: The name has also been applied to other opening sequences in which one of the players moves the king on move 2.. What would need to be rewritten? — Bilorv (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Piece colors in illustration

The piece colors are incorrect for a good half of the pieces. This needs corrected 2600:2B00:761F:4900:59A3:A315:B57B:C1FF (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any issue on my screen. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.Le Marteau (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)