Talk:Chess World Cup 2007

Why exactly is Anand not in the 2007 World Cup?

Why is Anand not in the 2007 World Cup? Kramnik and Topalov were of course excluded because of their 2008 matches. Wouldn't Anand be excluded for the same reason as Kramnik? Imagine that Anand did participate in the 2007 World Cup and won, and then went on to win against Topalov in 2008; if he also won his 2008 match against Kramnik, then you'd get the bizarre situation that he'd be his own challenger and then he would have nobody to play against in the 2009 match! Presumably this is why Kramnik was excluded, and surely Anand as well? However, the current article states that unlike Kramnik (who was excluded), Anand "refused" to take part. Is this correct, and is there verification for this? And if he did refuse to play, why? Gregorytopov (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole sentence is "3 participants of the World Chess Championship 2007 (Levon Aronian, Peter Svidler, Alexander Grischuk). Two players (Kramnik and Topalov) were excluded, and three more (Anand, Lékó, and Morozevich) refused to take part." So there's an even worse inaccuracy: Topalov was not a participant of the 2007 championship (he was excluded because he lost to Kramnik) and the actual eighth player, Gelfand, is not mentioned. The article says elsewhere that Gelfand is not playing in the current tournament, but why not? Did he also decline, and for what reasons? Why is Polgar not participating? 91.107.135.131 (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've edited, corrected, and clarified the information about the eight qualifiers from the World Chess Championship 2007, and the five who are not participating in the 2007 World Cup. This section now reads as follows, and includes links for verification:

"Of the eight qualifiers from the World Chess Championship 2007 in Mexico, five were replaced with players from the average rating list. The FIDE regulations stated that "GMs Vladimir Kramnik (RUS) and Veselin Topalov (BUL) cannot participate in the World Cup 2007 as both players have already been seeded in the next stage (matches) of the World Chess Championship Cycle 2007-2009." Péter Lékó and Aleksandr Morozevich refused to take part as a form of protest against the special privileges given for the inclusion of Kramnik and Topalov in the World Chess Championship Cycle. The other two participants of the World Chess Championship 2007 not playing at the Chess World Cup 2007 are Boris Gelfand and Viswanathan Anand, who is also already seeded in the World Chess Championship Cycle as the current World Champion. The only other player from the Top 30 who is not participating is Judit Polgár."

"The final list of qualifiers for the World Cup was as follows: 3 of the 8 participants of the World Chess Championship 2007 (Levon Aronian, Peter Svidler, Alexander Grischuk). The other five qualifiers in this category were replaced by five players from the average rating list." Gregorytopov (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As the World Chess Championship 2009 article stated before the fact became obsolete, there were special provisions for the possibility that the same player might win both the 2007 World Cup and the 2008 World Championship. In that case, the match between that player and Veselin Topalov would be held as the 2009 World Championship directly. Of course, after Mexico City Anand was the only player still able to incur this exception, and as he withdrew from this tournament the point became moot. Anyway, it's in section 4.2 here. -- Jao (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Anand needs to participate to get a chance in 2009 if he loses in 2008 to Kramnik. Perhaps he thinks it is a waste of time, but he certainly was allowed to participate. I suspect most of the non-participants are boycotting, same as Leko and Morozevich. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also see Talk:World Chess Championship 2009, where a poster wrote "There has been no word on this from any of the normal chess news outlets but rumour has it that they were not happy with the special provision given to Topalov (seeded straight to final). FCKosice, 18 October 2007" Peter Ballard (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Importance and class of this article

I have downgraded the class of this article to B-class, as any other grade (GA, A or FA) requires a formal review of some kind. See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review for more information. I have also downgraded the importance to Mid, as this is only a qualifier tournament and my current understanding is that only World Championships should be in High importance. Please correct me if I am misguided. SyG (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that A-class for a particular project requires a formal review. The class ratings are per-project, see Category:Wikipedia_1.0_assessments which emphatically states (bold in original): "having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class". Also, I think World Championships should be Top importance. High for this qualifier seems appropriate. Quale (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the class ratings are per project, but I would tend to disagree that A-class does not need a review. You may want to check Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review which provides a framework for reviews within the WikiProject Chess, as also explained on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess, paragraphs "...to assess" or "...to review".

Also, Chess World Cup 2007 is certainly a very good article but I do not think it has reached the level of A-class for the moment, e.g. the lead is too short. For example the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment states that "Once an article reaches the A-Class, it is considered complete". It also states in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Grades that an A-class article "provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.

Sorry if I seem a bit nitty-gritty, but A-class should really be something like the best, just a corridor to FA-class, and ahead of GA-class (although I know GA is a different system and not directly comparable). Still, cheers for the tremendous work you have put in this article! SyG (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed Xu's title

I changed Xu Yuhua from WGM to GM. Her FIDE report card contradicts itself by calling her a "Woman Grand Master (GM)". This is true of a number of women on the top 50 women's list from October, and they all have the g in their title column on that list. Xu also has the g on the search results page, but for some reason is not on the top 50 list (where she should be around 7th). It's all very confusing, but I think it's safe to assume that she is a GM, in the light of the fact that FIDE traditionally bestows the title upon all Women's World Champions. -- Jao (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Review for A-class

This article has been subject to a review within the WikiProject Chess in order to assess whether quality could be assessed as A-class. The review began on 21st February 2008 and ended on 11th March 2008. The discussion is reproduced hereafter so that editors can find hints on how to improve the article. The original discussion can also be consulted here.

You can see the archived discussion hereunder: SyG (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Review of Chess World Cup 2007

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Chess World Cup 2007. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

Review by Bubba73: conclusion was "Oppose"

Oppose I do not think this should be an "A" article. First, it covers the technical aspects (pairings, etc) very well and completely. However, there are no key games or positions given. There are no photos. And even if there were games, positions, and photos, there are articles that are about more important events. There are several world championship matches that don't have articles. Bubba73 (talk), 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC) There is much good technical stuff, but not much that makes the event interesting. Bubba73 (talk), 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Review by SyG: conclusion was "Oppose", suggested for GA-class

Oppose to A-class. My first reasons are: The lead is too short and not well organised. For example it mix up important elements (location, date, purpose) and minor/trivia ones (two 17-years-old). Some whole chapters do not have any reference, e.g. the "Background" chapter. Some sentences are too subjective. For example in "Prominent non-participants" it says "All other leading players [...] were eligible to participate", but noone defined which players are leading and which are not. There are no key games mentioned. There are no photos. There is no "Footnotes" section distinct from the "References" section. Some wikilinks work only with redirects. Some wikilinks are superfluous, e.g. the one linking "$" to the wiki article "United States dollar". There are some external links directly in the article, e.g. some ChessBase reports. It is not immediately clear to me why the rounds 5-7 are placed before the rounds 1-4. Is there a Wikipedia Guidelines on this type of formatting ? However, as it is still a well-enough organised article, I would suggest to consider it for GA-class. SyG (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Review by ChessCreator: conclusion was "Oppose"
Oppose No photo ChessCreator (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion by SyG: A-class was failed
Close the review Given that: the article has already garnered 4 negative votes, including one from the original nominator, no one has made a positive evaluation, no one is doing changes to the article for now to take into account the critics, I shall close this review and declare the article has failed to pass to A-class. SyG (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chess World Cup 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215013633/http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=DD106 to http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=DD106

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)