Talk:World Chess Championship 2008

Tie breaks section[1]

The explanation of tie breaks has grown worse, so I have rewritten it to closely follow the only source we use for that section. Although I agree with Peter Ballard that "round" is an appropriate term to use for the Armageddon game and it is likely the way I would have worded it myself, it is not difficult to use other language so I have avoided using it in the text (and it is not used in the source either). The stated goal of another editor (discussion precipitously archived from this talk page) to make it clear that the "third round" Armageddon game is fundamentally different from the first two rounds of tie breaks violates WP:NPOV and is not supported by the only source used for the section, so it is inappropriate until a reliable source can be cited. Really, it isn't necessary. I think using rapid games of any kind to decide the World Championship is dumb (including the rapid and blitz games used as the first two tie breaks), but let's just say what the source says. Our readers can make any necessary judgments. If the match is decided by the Armageddon game we will have no shortage of reliably sourced commentary that we can use. In any case, FIDE has a history of this foolishness. The outcome of a 1983 Candidates Match was determined by the spin of a roulette wheel (Vasily Smyslov and Robert Hübner). 165.189.91.148 (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My stated goal is independent of my final edits. Please sign in and explain this seriously. I saw your talk page than you've already gotten into edit wars with a bot, and have discussions on your talk page about sock puppets and edit warring. If you create an account with us all that bad stuff will go away, and I'll have better faith in you. You seem to be a little bit unpredictable. I put a lot of work into creating a very good and neutral section, which you seem to be able to spend less time on and say is better. Sentriclecub (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The match regulations specify a series of three tie breaks. isn't even correct. specify means [2] to give details. If you are trying to hawk this sentence, try "The organizers have outlined conditions for up to three tie break rounds" Are you calling those 3 bulleted items a "tie break" that is like calling a bar of soap a "tie break". The syntax is invalid. If you put serious work into redoing my edits, that's fine, but please don't use the main article as a sandbox. I worked out grammar and stuff on a subpage before I loaded it into the article. Judging by your edit 7 minutes apart, and fixing a typo, shows you aren't concerned with getting it perfect the first time, and its not perfect the second time either. I wrote my version, while constantly following the input of users Philcha and Mr. Ballard who cautioned me to not be critical of the armageddon clause. The version I included, is neutral, and gives a better service to the reader of how the final game works and why its not one-sided (in the last sentence). Please create a username, that's more important to me than the who edits the final version last. Sentriclecub (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I even compared my version[3] to the current version[4] for 30 minutes after I was done, making sure they are equally neutral, so if you edit again, please discuss again on the talk page (which I thank you for doing today) but respond with specific details about my version, and why it is worse than your version. My intentions shouldn't be judged, only my edits to the mainspace. Its fine to judge my intentions, but you can't attack my edits purely because of my intentions, or else we'd have to ban everyone who edits the Rush Limbaugh article and Anne Coulter. Just kidding, its fine, but discuss it out on the talk page, and also consult the style guide, here WP:STYLE which I consulted with during my whole planning/drafting session. Sentriclecub (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are most of the reasons that I think your edits did not improve the section.

1. There are 3 rounds of tie breaks, not 2, so your edit was factually incorrect.

There may only be one, and my way handles this idea & meaning & concept better. Sentriclecub (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Three rounds logically call for 3 bullet points, not 2. It is also better to use a numbered list rather than a bulleted list as the items form an ordered sequence.

The "rounds" are contingent only, and are subject to if/then syntax, not stringed syntax Sentriclecub (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

3. Your wording of the first and second bullet points was asymmetrical. I've reproduced them below. Note that the end of the first bullet explains how to achieve victory in that tie break round but the second bullet doesn't, as you moved that to the beginning of the following paragraph. Symmetrical sentence construction aids comprehension.

Its better to be asymmetrical, see WP:STYLE its bad flow and poor word choice to have repetitiveness. Sentriclecub (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• The first round will be four rapid games, with the players alternating white and black pieces. Time control for these games will be 25 minutes plus 10 seconds per move. If one player scores 2.5 points or more, then the match is over and the winner is declared champion.
• The second round will be two blitz games (5 minutes plus 10 seconds per move), each player having white once and black once.

4. Your description of all the ways that the second round tie break can end tied ("two draws, or one win and one loss for each player") is verbose and unneeded. If you add a complete description to the article of all the ways that the main 12 game portion of the match can end tied, I'll reconsider whether this explanation is a good idea.

No, it replaces the need to say "if one player scores 1.5 or more points" which I discussed on the archive in better detail. Sentriclecub (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

5. I think "specify" is an accurate word choice, as the match regulations do give details on the tie break procedures. I don't think "outline" is as good a choice here as these are the match regulations. I've not seen them criticized as being vague, and that complaint isn't in evidence here (at least yet).

Specify is a terrible word choice, as in your sentence. Sentriclecub (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

6. You start a sentence with "however", but this is generally discouraged. (See wikt:however, for example.) However I sometimes start sentences that way too.

However directs the readers attention to anticipate some sort of a contrast. A great choice of style. Sentriclecub (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

7. On the plus side, earlier versions of the section including yours said that colors would alternate in the first two rounds of tie breaks. My edit omits this information as I suspect that most chess players would simply assume this, but it might be better to state it explicitly as was done before.

Good point, let me think more about it. Sentriclecub (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

8. Instead of ordering me to justify my edits so that you can get your way, how about you explain why you think your rewrite is better? So far the only clue you've offered is that you feel the need to emphasize that (in your opinion) the third tie break Armageddon game is different from the first two rapid tie breaks in a notable way. This brings your motivation into the discussion. Give us another reason why you think your edits improve the section and we can discuss that. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you've gotten off to a bit of a rough start here and at Talk:Chessmetrics. It isn't too late to get things back on track. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm ordering you to consider creating an account with us as I've said plenty of times, it would be a very meaningful gesture on your part. The final version of the tie break section is 10x less important. Secondly, the arbiter agreed that even after these 3rd party references, the chessmetrics article would barely survive a merge debate. You have ignored this request without explaining to me why not rid your talk page of the sockpuppet stuff and edit-battles against a bot, and edit warring notice. Sentriclecub (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I urge you two to stop edit warring, and seek consensus. Justifying one's position on the Talk page, and then performing a revert, is not consensus. I suggest either:

• You two agree on a compromise;
• OR solicit more opinions from elsewhere;
• OR delete the section, and replace it with a quote from the match rules.

Peter Ballard (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is a WP:GAME to him. He doesn't care about improving the article, but just wants to follow sentriclecub's edits on chess articles. Sentriclecub (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter, my edits are very close to a quote from the match rules and were written precisely with that point in mind. Since you are here, I welcome you to express an opinion if you choose. On the other hand, if you want to limit your involvement with Sentricleclub due to your past experience with him, I certainly understand.

Sentricleclub, per your orders, I have considered getting an account. Do you want to order me to do anything else while I'm here? Also I don't feel the need to delete anything from this IP's talk page, since there's nothing I'm ashamed about at User talk:165.189.91.148. You can delete sections from User talk:Sentriclecub if you like—it's your talk page. A little note about standard wikipedia practices: You shouldn't intersperse your reply in the middle of someone else's Talk page comment. I realize that the large number of points I raised could be difficult to respond to in a block below, so I have now numbered them for easier reference. Also, it is generally frowned upon to change a section title on a talk page (as you did) except for a few specific reasons (personal attacks, etc.)

Now that that's out of the way, you are wrong on every point in dispute, which is to say everything except #7. To take one example, #4, even if I thought that your text "two draws, or one win and one loss for each player" was better than the original "if one player scores 1.5 or more points" (and I don't), this is a false dilemma. My edit that you reverted does not contain anything about points. Instead it uses a parallel construction very similar to the reference used for the section. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Undent At first you were trying to argue your version was better. After I wasted 30 minutes explaining in very fine detail, now you are trying to argue on the grounds of "closer to the exact quote". Please see WP:STYLE. I have worked as a Stringer (journalism), I have taken writing classes in college, and I have an OCD about perfectionism. So if you will tell me a single outline of how I can successfully argue my edits and you agree to stop the ad nauseum attacks which drain my time, I'll agree to your rules as long as they are deterministic. You seem to be very persistent about undoing my edits, which is why I've ducked low on editing the mainspace for awhile (not saying you would or have in the past) but I can only handle one 2-3 pages in my watchlist. And I've had to make sacrificies to other parts of wikipedia, in order to spend more time with you. Sentriclecub (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly you're delusional if you think I lost any argument to you. Your version is poorly written for all the reasons I have given, and at least one other user agrees that your version is worse than the text it replaced, and you have never clearly explained why you felt it necessary to rewrite the tie break section. I included the detailed critique of your writing only after you explicitly requested it, writing above: "if you edit again, please discuss again on the talk page (which I thank you for doing today) but respond with specific details about my version" [empasis mine]. Then when I accede to your request and give you specific details you whine about "ad nauseum". Talk about changing the rules. If you can't handle criticism, don't ask for it. The original text was better than your rewrite. My text is better than your rewrite. It is better written and closer to the source. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PLease don't buckle under a small request. List the items out line by line. Sentriclecub (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN is about own sections of an article, not about owning a version. I don't own the tie break section, but I did author a competing version. Please don't wikilawyer, and list your arguments line by line, or else re:rere:rerere will get out of hand. Sentriclecub (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue against your meta-discussion. Just list your points, don't buckle under such pressure. Its a minor request, but its the format I do best in. I don't like jumbling lots of indents and grouping all bullet points into a single section of the talk page. Please don't badger me with meta-discussion. List the points, start by making your argument, then I'll respond. We take turns, we reach compromises faster. Sentriclecub (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm past caring but for the record I agree with the anon IP on all points 1-7. Also I see nothing in WP:STYLE against repetition, and IMHO while it is good to avoid repetition in stories and opinion pieces, repetition is good in reference material because it's easier to follow. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC) p.s. and I should add this is nothing personal against Sentriclecub, this is just my assessment of which is the better version. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I really liked that white/black vertical table

Would it be appropriate to put it at the top of the "games" section of the article? It was deleted by someone who wrote that the two boxes are too close together. I think an alternative maybe to put the box after game 6? or after games 4 and 8 (to show the score up to that point). I don't know, but I really miss that helpful box. Sentriclecub (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you. We have tables like the deleted one in most of our Chess world championships articles. We should restore it in some fashion. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll discuss those line items with you if

Please make them each have their own header. That way it's easier to reach compromises, and is easier for others to understand. You do the first round of giving a title to each point, then put your argument for that point only, and let me reply, and we take turns. Ok? Sentriclecub (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to hold me hostage to your conditions. First you said you'd only discuss it if I got an account. Now I have to format everything just so. You claim to not like drama but your every action here invites and creates it. I explained in detail above, #1-6 and 8, why your edit is not very good. Your initial responses missed on every point. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong to ask you to consider creating an account. Honestly that was my escape outlet. If you would have done so, I could have walked away from the article feeling smug (I would have been forced to, since I agreed to it, and wouldn't reneg). That's completely not on the subject, so forgive my explanation. The truth is that a debate is hard to follow, under your proposed numbering system. Lets seperate every bulletpoint into its own section. Again, you are dragging me into meta-discussion. I don't want to say well my response to #2 is blah blah blah, my response to #3 is blah blah blah" how are other readers supposed to follow along. I have 20 points higher than genius, you'd instantly lose in a clear format. You want a discussion which lets you have the upper hand. Please let each point have its own section on the talk page. We can archive it after we are done. I have sought feedback through email, and I was wrong for directing attention to your unwillingness to make a 30 second account to avoid a several hour debate. Sentriclecub (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

" I have 20 points higher than genius, you'd instantly lose in a clear format." -- that's sad. I am so very sorry for you. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I've been following this argument and I have to say, Sentricle, that you seem like a bit of a moron. You can't "order" anyone to do anything, you can't have everything in exactly the format you like best, and you're wrong on a lot of your points. Sorry, but that's just the way I look at it.

Oh, and no, I'm not making an account for you. 24.226.77.23 (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Links

Game 1 has a link to a website where the full game can be seen...so can someone do this for Games 2 and 3 and all the others, the same website has these games as well (I'd do it myself but I don't know how) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.177.101 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the chess match

Sentriclecub & Ballard: Please relocate your ex-lovers catfight & subsequent make-up pillow talk elsewhere, it's gross. This article's discussion shouild revolve around the Anand-Kramnik chess match taking place in Germany. There are private chat rooms and forums where you "fellows" would be better situated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

216.57.96.1, your insinuations are unfounded and a violation of WP:CIVIL - possibly "gross" enough to get you blocked if you continue in the same style. -- Philcha (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the apology to the Talk:World Chess Championship 2008/Archive 1, because it relates to a discussion there. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

27.a5+-

In game 10, is 27.a5+- a typo? + means check, but what is +-? Art LaPella (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See punctuation (chess). It may need to be explained in the text. I would guess most readers of this page (and even those who know algebraic) won't be familiar with this notation. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were not going to annotate the games, at least not in the main move text. Am I wrong? (The annotations were added three days ago by an IP.) -- Jao (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I think removing it would be fine. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I boldly did so, then. -- Jao (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We should remove the game scores

Now the event is over, it's time to raise (again) something which has annoyed me for a long time: we should not have game scores in the articles. By all means have (cited) comments and diagrams illustrating key turning points, but simply dumping the game scores in the article seems to me to be in clear breach of Wikipedia:Do not include copies of primary sources. IFurthermore, they add little nothing to the article - is any computer user going to pull out a chess board and play through the moves? It simply pads out the article for very little gain. Far better to link to a site such as Chessgames.com or Chessbase which allows users to play through the moves.

(Or even better, integrate a free Javascript viewer so users can play through the games. I've looked into it but it seems like a lot of work. So until then, a link to an external site is best.) Peter Ballard (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I played through some of the games. I couldn't imagine that I'm the only one.72.150.187.249 (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking: How did you play through it? (With a physical chessboard, a PGN viewer, Or something else)? And why did you do that rather than click on a link which allowed you to play through the game in a Java or Javascript viewer? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Chess Championship 2008

I searched for Chess Championship 2008 and did not find this page.72.150.187.249 (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Now Chess Championship 2008 links to it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Game 9 question mark for Kramnik

It says Qc7 was bad but does not explain why. Rg8 or Bc7 were suggested but I think there should be more detail. Galant Khan (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)