Talk:World Chess Championship 2008/Archive 1

Archive 1

Infobox table

I just did a reworking of the infobox at the top of the article. Added field names in a left column, did some rewords, and used smaller flag images. I hope this looks better. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Head to head results

The head to head results are definitely not right. IN classical It is +6 -4 and numerous draws in Kramnik's favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.131.161 (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP is right - I frazzled it out from Megabase 2008. Miastko (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I got slightly different score in blitz here --Jisis (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncited criticisms

I agree that an Armageddon match is a stupid way to decide a world championship; and it is stupid as a tie breaker as illustrated in two recent armageddon playoffs.[1] [2] BUT criticism needs to be sourced. The criticism section is unsourced so it'll have to be removed unless a decent WP:Reliable Source can be found which criticises the format. The Kasparov/Fischer reference doesn't count because it isn't criticising this format in particular. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I included the source using the ref /ref wikiformat. I'll find a source for the second sentence, but I reverted the first sentence which is a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentriclecub (talk • contribs) 06:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You haven't provided a cite for anyone criticising the best-of-12 format, you've only said that Fischer criticised the best-of-24 format. There are all sorts of problems with using that: (1) You're extrapolating from Fischer's opinion on a quite different situation, this extrapolation is WP:Original Research; (2) Even if Fischer had been criticising best-of-12, a lot has changed since in the 33 years since Fischer refused to play, with matches gradually getting shorter; (3) Many, perhaps most, observers thought Fischer was being unreasonable, and plenty of people have come back from behind in matches (including Fischer himself); (4) Fischer's not a good person to cite anyway, he believed all sorts of crazy things. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On the Armageddon, there is quite a bit of feedback at Chessbase over it (including from me!), but I'm not sure that Chessbase readers count as a WP:Reliable Source. Perhaps if we can find a comment like, "most reader feedback thought that Armageddon playoffs are bad" it might be OK. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to discuss this on the talk page. I've removed the critisms section, lets work on it here. Sentriclecub (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

===Criticisms===

Bobby Fischer's refusal to play Anatoly Karpov in a chess world champsionship match was initially based on the incentive for the player with a small early lead to draw the rest of their games and thus clinch the victory, without a real chance for the opponent to make a comeback.

Secondly, the conditions of the match are such that if a tie score results after the first 12 games, an Armageddon blitz game could determine the winner .

First, I don't really like using chessbase.com as a source, but if its the only one available then that's tolerable. Secondly, I am sure that there are some non-english sources for this. I'll try to find a source stating that if a tie score results after the first 12 games, that an armageddon blitz game could determine the winner, other than chessbase. On the fischer quote, I think its highly relevant. Especially we have a U.S. 2009 candidate, Kamsky who has potential. Also, FIDE did concede on this fischer particular fischer demand. With the start of the match only 10 days away, we'll find a source hopefully before sunday. Sentriclecub (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We already have a source stating that there could be an Armageddon playoff - it's in the "match conditions" section. That is not the issue. The issue is who (other than random bloggers like me) has criticised it. On the issue of Fischer - FIDE did agree to Fischer's demand to remove the best of 24 condition, but that turned out to be a mistake as the 1984 K-K match proved. So that's hardly an endorsement of Fischer's proposal. But again, more to the point, Fischer was criticising something very different, 33 years ago. Fischer has not criticised this match format. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the specific section on wp:cite or wp:verifiability that you are looking at? If I skimmed a few pages of policy, I might not read things the same way as you. Could you specifically show me where you are concluding that Fischer's viewpoint is irrelevant to this article? I would never try to say that random bloggers like you and I are verifiable, but it seems to me that you're asking me to just find one source of any pro, in any news publication, and that I'm only allowed to use that specific player (if that's all the article says). I think a criticisms section should list the general criticisms, since I don't think its important the listing of players on each side of the issue. The article is about the chess match. The section of the article on conditions is about match conditions. Can't I just find a source saying someone criticizes it? and then source it? but not have to break the main idea of the paragraph? It is not so simple, so I'll read your answer, and will read the specific part of wp:cite or wp:verifiability that you direct me to, and then I'll proceed. Sentriclecub (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As a counterpoint, let me speculate that the prize money was $30 Billion. That would belong in the criticisms section, even if it was already mentioned somewhere else in the article. There are several right wing people who have stuff which isn't great about them listed under several sections of their article. Usually in a "criticisms" section and higher up on the page under "personal life" or etc... I strongly believe that the article needs to be fixed before the match begins. I think right now, the article not mentioning the part I want included, is a disservice to the article. That's why I'm working so hard here on the talk page to figure out how to improve the article in a way that everyone sees acceptable. Sentriclecub (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I have in mind is WP:SYNTH, which says in part,

"Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together different sources to reach a conclusion. Even if it is published by reliable sources, material must not be put together in a way that constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."

I submit that taking Fischer's comments on his 1975 (non) match, and applying them to this 2008 match, violates that part of WP:SYNTH.

Then there is WP:UNDUE, in the sense that Fischer was a crackpot and his opinions on matches do not necessarily make sense, so are not relevant. If other people shared Fischer's views on matches, we should be able to find them, but I think you'd struggle to find anyone who shares Fischer's opinion that 24 games is too short for a match. Fischer also said that all Karpov-Kasparov matches were pre-arranged, every single move. Should we note that in the articles on World Chess Championship 1984 etc? Of course not, because Fischer's view was crazy. So, given that Fischer had a track record of saying crazy things, I submit that Fischer's opinions are not relevant, unless we can find other prominent players or commentators who hold them. To quote WP:UNDUE:

• "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"
• "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia"

So in short, for any criticisms, we should be able to name and cite notable critics. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I just have a feeling that this is a case where I believe strict interpretation is not warranted. After reading the guidelines, I just have to disagree that the article should be subject to the verbatim rules. I think the article lacks mention of that the tie-breaker method is one of the worst in all of sports. Especially people who don't know much about chess, or with little understanding of chess life, will read the article and miss a very important topic. The article, as it stands now, includes a 1 line statement of the tie break process, with no focus or development of that relevant idea. It just makes a passing mention of it, then proceeds to talk about something else. I believe wikipedia editors need to also apply editorial reasoning, (for example, I witnessed a horrible decision to remove an entire controversy section of a political based article, simply because the proposer was too lazy to look up sources and felt it would be an uphill battle against a group of three zealous editors). My father is a journalist, my brother is earning a degree in journalism, I have worked as a Stringer (journalism) and have taken two workshops about how to cover a story (be it sports, or a city counsel meeting) and I'll recuse myself from further involvement in this article, as I can't be productive at this moment. The way I see it is too ingrained into me, that I can't tolerate my persistent editorial judgment nagging at me about how this article suffers because its a casualty of those guidelines you mentioned. I see no way to draw attention to the tie-breaker method, without it sounding like the article went out of its way to satisfy a guidelines, solely to justify important content. I agree with the policy, as it is something which should be followed, or else too many editors will become journalists. I just feel robbed, by the guidelines. I think its unfair that the article gives only a passing mention to a prominent feature of the match conditions. Sentriclecub (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but for Wikipedia to work, we can't have editors inserting their opinions, however noble. There are plenty of other ways to do that on the internet. If no prominent critics can be found for the current format, this is a case of WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves - just state the match and tiebreak conditions, and chess followers can decide for themselves whether they are good or bad. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, for wikipedia to work efficiently, its best to be a team player. Its just hard to acknowledge this balancing of my personal interests of how I think the article would best serve a casual reader, with my maverick style. I take a lot of pride in stuff that I do, but I need to learn how to compromise on the lesser 80% of stuff, and just stand bold on the most important 20%, as following Pareto's Principle. Maybe it will work itself out, now that Jao has joined the team. Sentriclecub (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion has drifted into getting too nit-picky. The way I'd view the issues is:

• "first to win N games" was the original format (N=10 up to but not including 1922; N=6 for 1927). Em. Lasker criticised this format in the run-up to 1922 on the grounds that it could go on for ever, especially as drawn games were becoming more common. Alekhine-Capablanca 1927 (34 games, 25 drawn) and Karpov-Kasparov 1984 (abandoned after ?48) proved him right. Other articles cite plenty of WP:RS for all this. IMO the "obvious deduction" clause of WP:OR allows us to apply Lasker's criticisms to any "first to win N games" format.
• "best of N games" has been criticised because it gives the leader an incentive to play for draws. Steinitz and Fischer made this point - see other articles for WP:RS
• "best of N games and champion retains in event of a tie" favours the incumbent. Apart from the "obvious deduction" clause of WP:OR, IIRC Fischer made this point while arguing for a 2-game lead clause in 1975. I think the accuracy or otherwise of Fischer's claim that his proposal gave the incumbent a smaller advantage is a side-issue.
• The new feature is a tie-breaker. If there was WP:RS criticism of this in 2006, the "obvious deduction" clause of WP:OR allows the same points to be made about 2008, provided the tie-breaker is identical - otherwise new WP:RS are required. -- Philcha (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting sources for criticisms

If anyone can provide me a source about the tie-breaker, I'll write a paragraph that segues from the source of critism to the absurdity of possibly letting an 11 minute chess variant potentially decide who is the world chess champion. Sentriclecub (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As the tie-breaking criteria were the same for the World Chess Championship 2006, a critisism of that match could do as well. I don't think "although the 2006 format was criticized by so-and-so, it was once again employed for the 2008 match" or something like that could be considered a WP:SYNTH violation. Our 2006 article mentions nothing of the sort, though, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. -- Jao (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Does the burden go to those who say nothing has changed in the last 2 years and its still relevant? Or do we need to somehow argue that something notable in 2006 is prima facie notable in 2008 also. I've invited Mr. Ballard to share his input. Sentriclecub (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism from 2006 would be fine, because the match conditions are the same. For the same reason, criticism of other Armageddon playoffs would also be OK. But we DO need reliable sources: we can't editorialise, it's a clear violation of WP:NPOV policy. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we at least double our chances of finding a source, since it can be from 2006. That's a start, hopefully it's enough to work with, if I can figure out the optimum keywords to put into google's search engine. Sentriclecub (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's one from Nigel Short, during the rapid playoff in World Chess Championship 2006: "World Championships used to have a little more gravitas. But now they are decided by rapid hand movements."[3] But it's not clear to me whether he was criticising the rapid playoff, or the possibility of an Armageddon (which didn't happen that time). Peter Ballard (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref, but you're right, is still in the gray area. It seems to me he is obviously talking about if its a tie after the first 12 games (played at the primary time controls), but its true, he's not being specific enough. Maybe I can try to see which tourney he was talking about, it says it happened in Oct 2006. I'm almost feeling like we should put it out there, and let the readers decide, but I'm not going to get lazy all of a sudden, I'll try to figure out Short's intention, will check back in a few hours. Sentriclecub (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with a criticism section is that it collects negative comments only. I get the impression that overall reaction to this match has been positive. Also, the main criticism is probably from Anand himself, who has said he prefers a tournament championship and that Kramnik should not have had the special privilege of a rematch. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And Gata Kamsky says something similar, "personally I think it’s ridiculous that Kramnik gets so many privileges and gets basically two chances to defend his own title."[4] Peter Ballard (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OTOH Levon Aronian supports the Kramnik rematch: "In my opinion the world championship should actually be decided in a match between the title holder and a challenger. That is the traditional way of deciding the world championship. We are returning to that when the winner of the world championship tournament has to play a match against the former world champion."[5] Peter Ballard (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think a criticism section is appropriate given the nature of the complaint, and the subject of the article. The criticisms section I believe you are alluding to, would be redundant after the match if the first 12 games are decisive. I'm leaning towards the proposal to just include more attention to the possibility that a bullet chess variant could determine the outcome. I think consideration needs to be worded in such a way that this fact is still relevant after the match is over, with no needed modification. Afterall, the way the tie break is spelled out now, will get killed/deleted once the match is over, if the first 12 games are decisive. Since we are running short on time, may I ask you to present the section you think is appropriate? I can't see how going about this the way you suggest, won't hurt the sequiter of the article. It is already looking like we plan on just posting the games (which isn't my preferred style, but no big deal), and will have a very small top region compared to the rest of the article. Its been a week of trying to come up with an alternative that strictly follows wp:thisorthat but I can't envision a way to blend in the source into the article without it causing content proportion problems. I'm for the idea of putting in an uncited single sentence, neutrally worded, that draws attention to the tie breaker process whereby the reader can think it over and realize its senseless. The references and citations are out there but I don't think its possible, thus any chance to improve this article is killed if we have to attach all these riders. I can't write an article this way, so I would like to see your proposal of how to criticize succinctly the problem with the article as the article exists right now. I don't think there is a citation which is worded perfectly for what we need, so I'll defer to your judgment if we can bend the rule here, since it is awkward to go searching for the exact citation which we need, but it must be out there somewhere, because its a fact that I'm not the only one who calls 660 seconds of armageddon a bullet chess variant. I'm not even a rated player, and it will make me lose sleep if going into the 10th game, the match looks drawish. Sentriclecub (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My preference, as stated above, is to not include any criticism section. Simply spelling out the conditions, as we already have, is sufficient. (Unless there is prominent criticism, but there hasn't been much of that). For the games themselves, we should simply present the results, with links to sites with analysis. Trying to put game scores and analysis in the article (as at World Chess Championship 2006 and FIDE World Chess Championship 2004) is IMHO a waste of space. I mean, seriously, who is going to read those games scores, when there are other sites out there where users can click through the games without a board, and with proper GM analysis. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sentriclecub, Wikipedia policy is clear - content not supported by WP:RS may be deleted by anyone at any time. If you add your own opinions about the tie-break system, they may be deleted. If you make additional changes while adding your own opinions about the tie-break system, your entire edits may be undone. Tie-breaking systems are controversial in any competition, for much the reasons you describe in your comments. But perhaps WP:RS commentaries have avoided this because they just want to put the plit in the world title behind them as far and fast ast possible. Note that any such statement in the artilce would be deleted as violation of WP:NOR unless supported by WP:RS. Note that an eminent player's blog is at best a grey area in WP:RS, and therefore not safe to use - if Short were commenting about the play if someone about whom he is known to be neutral, he would be a very good source, but he is not an organiser of top-level competitions. -- Philcha (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on adding any opinions, nor violating wp:rs, I'll just try to improve the article as outlined in my earlier post today. If you're wait until sunday, you can revert my edits, and we'll begin a new discussion, per my earlier post. I plan on just exercising my above average writing abilities, to put about one hour of work into adding one net-sentence or less, which will improve the article, and I predict it will be approved by you and Mr. Ballard. I will not add anything which I expect you or Mr. Ballard to disagree with, and you have both been very clear with me, and will make an edit which I think is mutually amicable for all three of us. I will work on it sunday, and either of you will be free to modify it in anyway you see fit. No exceptions. Sentriclecub (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

discussion area for WP:PG and also common sense

Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus. Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more ADVISORY IN NATURE. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Those who edit in good faith, are civil, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment.

Given the 10 days I tried to hammer this out on the talk page, I plan on sometime sunday rewriting the tie break section (and possibly match conditions) of the article, which as it stands, I think is poorly constructed and looks like Antonin Scalia wrote it! (see his section on philosophy and approach)

Its absurd to think (to myself) I have to go his blog and beg for a statement, so that i'm allowed to improve the wikipedia article by asking him "Mr. Short, I'm sorry to bother you, but wikipedia won't let me fix the World Chess Championship 2008 article, until you tell me if your feedback about the tie break, and then I have to attribute this minority viewpoint entirely on you and make the article sound like you are the only person criticizing the argmageddon clause". I have a good standing over there, and I leave the pros alone, I don't drive them off with non-sense requests, and chessgames is a happy place for its amateur-pros interactions because we leave them alone and don't frustrate them. He could signup for a Nigelshort.blogspot.com account but instead he's happy perched at our chess community.

I really think that the facts are on my side, and Nigel Short is on my side (and if Fischer was still alive, he'd be on my side), and I'm sure there are hundreds of people worldwide who don't like the 660 seconds of a chess variant disrupt the sanctity of respect for the highest honor in chess.

So this will be my last post. Improving the article, and sidestepping guidelines, I will plan on making an improvement to the section of the article. This is a big deal to me, probably an importance level of 6. The only way I'll stop trying to improve this section (which afterall, I was the one who voluntarily took it off the page and moved it here for 12 days to try and compromise), is if Mr. Ballard or anyone else, says that the importance level to them is higher than 6. Because I really want to help out, but not if its a bigger deal to someone else.

So the compromise deliberations of the last 11 days aren't over (they just go here instead), but please only respond to this section of the talk page if you are telling me to just let this thing go, and to walk away. My main priority is trying to help write two finance articles, which are of extremely high importance (since the U.S. is in a recession, and wikipedia is a poor place to understand topics which are critical to the federal reserve) that I have a call of duty to help improve the parts which I'm actually an expert in. I'm a chess enthusiast, and I know my rating speaks for itself, plus I've only been playing chess for 2 years, so it won't hurt my feelings for anyone to tell me that my lingering at this article, to try to improve it, is a bigger deal to that person, than to me. Sentriclecub (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC) FIDE~1400 Chessmetrics~1296

Well, I think that if things actually go to the sudden death game, there will be no shortage of reliable sources with observer opinions and player quotes on this topic. Conscious (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My guess is they won't change it until there's a major controversy showing how stupid it is. That seems to be how the sporting world works, both in chess (e.g. the unlimited match rule) and other sports. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What a foul interpretation! Is that what you thought I meant this whole discussion time? Sentriclecub (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there's a recent interview with Kramnik where he says that 24-game match is too long, while 12 games are sufficient: in Russian, machine translation.

Schedule section

1. I don't think the player names need to be wiki-linked here. 2. I think it is sufficient to list the White player only. Bubba73 (talk), 04:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree on both. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

tie break section

Sentriclecub put this comment in the text, which I've moved to here:

• To the IP editor, please acknowledge and concede just one minor point, so I can trust your intentions. Is it not better to call the "third round" which is just a single game, given a different desgination that the "first round and second round" which both are correct dictionary uses of the word, and they refer to a pluralilty?

My response: I disagree. There are 3 rounds of tie breaks. The Armageddon is still a "round" even though it is a round of only 1 game. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to put my proposal on the chess wikiproject and seek feedback, but as soon as I marked my edit, some other user got into an edit war, so I put my version back in only because I didn't want to have to deal with intermediate conflicts. Here is the comparison... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sentriclecub/BiologicalMagnitudes Sentriclecub (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On an important note, that wasn't the edit summary of my main insertion into the article. I made 3 edits to the article today, the first two[6][7] are relevant and those edit summaries are the ones I should be quoted on, not the 3rd edit summary.

Those edit summaries trump the first one. Sentriclecub (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Next, you write I disagree. There are 3 rounds of tie breaks. The Armageddon is still a "round" even though it is a round of only 1 game. that's why we should develop consensus here, as I feel it is poor reporting to call a game a round, sometimes. Sometimes its fine to call 1 game a round, such as perhaps a 1 round boxing match. However, given the nature of the tie breaks in this article, the first two rounds have a similar meaning. The third round is not a round as in the sense of the article. Its a major style issue, and damages the flow/continuity of meaning. I spent a lot of work making the tie break section fit the article. Do you believe here that I did not significantly improve the article? I have a lot of pride in my work, and am a bit of a perfectionist. I don't see how you could believe that your edit is in good faith, but if it was, how you could believe your version looks better and is more in the WP:STYLE of an encyclopaedia article. I worked very hard to make this article better, but I feel you're being very discriminative of my edits and I'm feeling a bit pushed around. Whether or not to call something a game or a round is met by a style guidelines (my specialty) and not a notability guideline or citation guideline (your specialties), so I would like you to please take a step back and ask yourself if you are trying to improve the article, (which as of today, I'm a member of wikiproject:chess so I have an equal right to be here as you do) and I would like to go to sleep tonite without worrying about waking up to more nitpicky edits done against me. Sentriclecub (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The summary I wrote when I reverted the IP guy's edit was

18:01, 14 October 2008 Sentriclecub (Talk | contribs) (10,125 bytes) (Undid revision 245310046 by 165.189.91.148 (talk) Please sign in and discuss this on the talk page) (undo)

The previous two edit summaries were

1. (8,956 bytes) (→Match conditions: Sorry about promising this on sunday, I thought the match started two days ago.) (undo)
2. (8,722 bytes) (Undid revision 245265420 by Sentriclecub (talk) going to get some feedback from chessgames.com members and the chess wikip) (undo)

By marking the article, I am able to quickly come back and revert edit #2 and it restores edit #1, unless someone does intermediate editing. Sentriclecub (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

game links

I think it's important to link to a site where users can play the game through; a raw game score isn't as useful. I've chosen Chessbase[8] rather than Chessgames.com[9] because Chessbase interface is Javascript, which is a bit more universal than the Java used at Chessgames. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There's room for both, and I ask you to please reconsider, and avoiding this conflict of interest. This article should represent WP:NPOV and you clearly and dishonorably excluded the points I raised at your very talk page!

• • Built in chess engine
  • Built in ability to add variations and write notes such as = or +/-
  • Built in AI to "play against" the computer of a very high elo, to play out any position
  • The design is much better
  • You can switch to a non java viewer

While ChessViewer deluxe is the default, there are 6 other "viewer options" including text only, plus there is a link right there on the board that says "java troubleshooting/help" [10]. This is getting pretty bad, and I'm beginning to believe you are coming at this from a biased position. Do you have any affiliation with chessbase or jeff sonas? I AGF'ed your misrepresentations about me during the chessmetrics garbage, but I'm beginning to fail to believe that every time you are on the opposite side of an argument with me, that its just coincidence (and coincidentally pushing chessbase and its news and its subjects of news) . This is a horrible judgment call, to use the chessbase viewer and to remove the chessgames viewer after I listed 4 benefits on your talk page, but you only care to mention one of them here. How is that for synthesizing a straw man? Please, I think you've gone way over the line, after seeing this very last and final thing you have done. Up until this post, I was still hopeful about you, but I don't think you're trying to help me out with advice like was written on my talk page, I believe you are bullying me by undermining all my edits. The game/round thing wasn't a big deal to me, but the chessgames/chessbase issue is a very controversial lapse in your judgment. You have the duty, when it is on your talk page, to bring those bullet points with you rather than asserting chessbase is better based on your selective representation of a competing alternative. Sentriclecub (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way this is the link I recommend using off of chessgames. With a single click, readers can pick any of the 12 and go straight to the game. Sentriclecub (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of putting the spoiler into the top part of the article

I believe we should develop consensus about whether to announce the score at the top of the article, where it mentions the date. Many people may have missed a game or two, and won't want to read the spoiler, especially for those of us joining late and aren't entirely in tune with the chess world. Sentriclecub (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should be more specific. I think it would be a better idea to include in the lead "the next game will be played on 15 Oct 2008" or something similar, but not "the score is currently 0.5-0.5" or equivalent. Or "the second game will be played on ..." that way in a very succinct syntax, it delivers two pieces of information in only 9 words.

• How many games have been played already
• When is the next game

What are your thoughts everyone? I think its better to not list 4 places in the article the score (since its already redundantly and duplicately listed under both the game count table, and the game score box). Sentriclecub (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It clearly belongs in. See WP:Spoiler and WP:Lead. In particular this sentence in WP:Lead: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Peter Ballard (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about leads vs spoilers, but did you mean

1. After two games, the score is level 1 – 1 and the next game is scheduled to take place on 16 October.
2. After two games, the score level is 1 – 1 and the next game is scheduled to take place on 16 October.

Either way is correct, but I didn't know which way you meant? Sentriclecub (talk)

Sentriclecub's incivility on the talk page at World chess championship 2008

First of all, sorry to mr. Ballard about getting emotional. Only today I read the AFC on kainaw and its discussion page, which found that you and Philca were wrong at the start of the discussion. It was found by a neutral outsider that

• I was initially correct to judge chessmetrics as an insa-delete based on it having only 1 source, not written by Mr. Sonas and that source was exactly as I said "notability is not established by being mentioned in a research paper" not notable
• You were found to have incorrectly said that I didn't read a reference and you broke WP:AGF when the discussion revealed in my favor that the reference wasn't there.

These findings were endorsed by everybody who read the summary. I left the chessmetrics fallout believing that my reasoning over there wasn't valid (about notability) and for the last two weeks I tried to improve my understanding of wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but today I was exonerated of my perceived violations of guidelines (except for using the wrong delete tag, which I admitted to very early).

The summary was fairly one sided and I guess that I learned a lot about myself today, because I shed lots of beliefs and self doubt. I do believe now that I'm able to look at the same policies and guidelines as you and come to at least the same level of understanding as you. I use mozilla firefox and I now have a button/toolbar integrated in the web browser that links to [11] and with one click I can find the policy or guideline I'm looking for. I will try and assert myself more and will begin to argue the interpretation of guidelines itself, instead of cowering.

I will try to keep a cool head, but I believe that viewing the interactions here (10 unbelievable days here discussing a nitpicky interpretation verbatim of synth, notability, and verifiability?) and combined with the interactions at chessmetrics, some of my reasons to question WP:POINT are merited and I encourage you to deal with my edits fairly, and not try and stretch a guideline as a warrant to prevent my contributions. I have very good reading comprehension ability, which is highly correlated with the ability to interpret, learn, and apply wikipedia's family of policies, guidelines, and protocols. Even your response on this page which is a week old but just saw it today, that you believed part of the discussion was to push changing the way the FIDE does tie-breakers, was eye opening for me. Sentriclecub (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"which found that you and Philca were wrong at the start of the discussion" - it found no such thing about me. Show me where or retract.

"You were found to have incorrectly said that I didn't read a reference" - found by who? Show me where or retract.

"and you broke WP:AGF when the discussion revealed in my favor that the reference wasn't there." - Says who? Show me where or retract.

I do not "believe(d) part of the discussion was to push changing the way the FIDE does tie-breakers". How on EARTH did you infer that from the comment I made?

I have no connection with chessbase or jeff sonas.

I still honestly believe the chessbase link is superior for the reason I set out (Javascript is more widely usable than Java) though I'm willing to be proven wrong.

And since you ask, I think your edit here made the article worse, and at least one user agrees with me.[12]

Peter Ballard (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more. I have never made "misrepresentations" about you. Again, I ask you to show me the evidence or retract. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Kainaw writes all of this to Philca

So, if you demand that I accept that everything I type must be read with whatever intentions you decide to place in my head, how do you justify these comments:

• "[Kainaw] refused at least twice to read the Moul & Nye ref in the article, the full text of which is available for free." User Talk:Peter Ballard. It is reasonably implied that I did read the article from my very first comment and I never stated once "I refuse to read that article." The fact is that you didn't read it until Peter told you that it didn't say what you claimed it said.
• "We told [Sentriclecub] there was a good ref in the article and he refused do accept it." User Talk:Peter Ballard. As above, the reference was not good. There was no reason for anyone to accept it.

the statement in its entire context from Kainaw's RFC

• "[Kainaw] refused at least twice to read the Moul & Nye ref in the article, the full text of which is available for free." User Talk:Peter Ballard. It is reasonably implied that I did read the article from my very first comment and I never stated once "I refuse to read that article." The fact is that you didn't read it until Peter told you that it didn't say what you claimed it said.
• "We told [Sentriclecub] there was a good ref in the article and he refused do accept it." User Talk:Peter Ballard. As above, the reference was not good. There was no reason for anyone to accept it.
• "The Talk page contains clear evidence that Kainaw never read the article or the citation." (above). Where is the clear evidence that you claim exists? Where is the evidence that you read the article?

I can go on and on. This just comes down the fact that you made a minor mistake and assumed that the reference said something that it didn't and then assumed bad faith upon anyone who questioned the validity of using that reference for notability. It is an honest mistake. Your repeated statements that could just as well be read as "lashing out" demonstrate your refusal to honestly admit your mistake. It is my opinion that you owe Sentriclecub an apology for smearing his name just you've been attempting to do mine. -- kainaw™ 00:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Philcha,

I'm just not seeing the problem here.

You've been "accused" of being so familiar with an article that you probably wrote it. In fact, you substantially expanded the stub. Am I supposed to believe that this is somehow an insult?

The article was "accused" of not having demonstrated its notability through suitable third-party references. You agreed that the references (at that time) were inadequate for establishing notability.

What is the problem? That Kainaw was right about your significant improvement of a neglected stub? That Kainaw was blunt about the ref being inadequate? That Kainaw apparently doesn't want to be your friend? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Kainaw said nothing about the ref being inadequate, and the chronology of the discussion indicates that he was unaware of it.

Kaimaw either negligently or deliberately misrepresented the content of the ref concerned when he said " This is a passing mention of Chessmetics.com. It has nothing to do with the chessmetics algorithm" (12:46, 26 September 2008, above). The key passage is quoted at Chessmetrics#Perceived_advantages and says "Ratings in chess that make use of rigorous statistics to produce good estimates of relative player strength are now relatively common, but comparing ratings across different time periods is often complicated by idiosyncratic changes (cf. Elo, 1968 for the pioneering discussion). Sonas uses the same rating formula throughout our sample and updates this rating monthly instead of annually, as is more common. Moreover, retrospective grading allows him to establish rankings that are unbiased estimates of the “true” relative strengths of players."

User:Peter Ballard, pointed out (12:32, 17 September 2008 UTC) that I'd quoted the "touring" verion of Moul & Nye rather than the published version, lives in Australia, while I like in the UK. Given time-zone difference (about 12 hours), I corrected the mistake fairly promptly (13:45, 17 September 2008 UTC and 23:01, 18 September 2008 UTC) - and thanked him for pointing it out. Kainaw did not raise or contribute to resolving that issue.

The version mix-up was pointed out and resolved after:

• Kainaw's insinuation that I was not objective, User:Peter Ballard's agreement that Chessmetrics is notable and his agreement that Kainaw should apologise to me.

Kainaw's subsequent slur on Wikiproject Chess and the objections raised to that (all 16 Sept).

WhatamIdoing, it might be a good idea for you to review the chronology of Talk:Chessmetrics#.22Not_notable.22_template_removed andTalk:Chessmetrics#Missing_Quote. I think the facts will support what I have said in this RFC discussion.

Kainaw claims above that he has "repeatedly stated that my comment about the chess community was obviously wrong." I have searched through all his commnets at Talk:Chessmetrics and can find no such statement.

Finally Kainaw says, "It is my opinion that you owe Sentriclecub an apology for smearing his name just you've been attempting to do mine." That was unwise:

• I do not see that anything I have written, either here or at Talk:Chessmetrics, is a smear on Sentriclecub.
• In his post at Talk:Chessmetrics#.22Not_notable.22_template_removed of 04:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC), Sentriclecub repeatedly distances himself from Kainaw: "Please wait, Don't group me together with everyone else. I don't want to disrespect the editors who have made all the hundreds of chessmetrics contributions"; "I think Kainaw's response was a little bit heated ..." -- Philcha (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of this. Until you can provide some proof that I did not read the article, did not read the reference, and then lashed out for no reason at all, I will not be responding further. -- kainaw™ 13:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

From Kainaw's very first post at Talk:Chessmetrics#.22Not_notable.22_template_removed, "... unless Philcha can provide some citations from someone who did not create the chessmetrics process ..." The article did that at the time and still does, check the history. The only explanation I xcan see for Kainaw's words is that he had not read the text of the article, let alone the relevant citation. In that case his comments about me and about Wikiproject Chess were gratuitous insults. -- Philcha (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That is an outright lie. The article contained a quote that was not found in any of the references. I did read the article. I did read the references (which you obviously did not do). It was very clear that the quote was not in any of the references. You have already admitted in this very conversation that the reference attached to the article at that time did not contain the quote from the article. It did not contain anything remotely close to showing notability. If you insist on using this lie to support your argument, then you are making it obvious that your argument is completely invalid. You have repeatedly made false accusations and assumed bad faith here. You have no basis for claiming that I did not read the article. You have no basis for claiming that I did not read the references. You have no basis for claiming that my impression that you wrote much of the article is false. I have no more interest in this argument as you are simply going to respond with another blatant lie and refuse to accept the truth that everyone else sees is painfully obvious. You failed to read the reference. You failed to add a reference of notability. You assumed bad faith. You bent the truth and outright lied to get others to side with you. You can continue arguing with yourself about this. -- kainaw™ 16:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs

Okay, Philcha, let me go over this in rather more detail than the situation actually warrants:

• Kainaw's first comment at Talk:Chessmetrics was at 00:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC).[13]
• At the time of Kainaw's first comment, there were exactly three references in the article.[14] The previous edit (by you) had been finished at 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC), which is a little less than three hours before Kainaw's first comment on the talk page. The three references present in the article at that time were:
  1. The Chessmetrics website
  2. Something written by Jeff Sonas (the person that runs Chessmetrics.com)
  3. A paper by Moul and Nye. In this paper, the sole reference to Chessmetrics is this: "Our data were supplied by Jeff Sonas of Chessmetrics.com"

Not true. If you click the "download" link at the Social Sciences Network page, as per the words "Full article freely available via links on the cited web page", in the citation, it shows 4 download links, its own & 3 mirrors. The first one contains the words that are currently quoted in the article. The version of the Chessmetrics article you mentioned it contained wording from another later version that Moul & Nye later took "on tour" to seminars - this is the error that Peter Ballard pointed out after Kainaw had made uncivil remarks about me and then about Wikiproject chess. -- Philcha (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Philcha, I clicked on both links in the ref as it existed at the exact moment that Kainaw made his first comment. Both clickable links led to the same page. I found no mention of Chessmetrics at all on that page. I then clicked on "Download" and searched the entire pdf file for "Chessmetrics". That word appears on page 11, in the sentence I quoted above. It also appears on page 23, in the pdf's "References" section.

You will forgive me for belaboring the obvious here: I looked at the actual reference actually cited in the actual version of the Wikipedia article at the actual moment that Kainaw made his first comment. It contains no support for Chessmetrics' notability. If you (or someone else) accidentally cited the wrong source, that is not my, or Kainaw's, fault. You cannot expect editors to judge notability based on the version of a source that you meant to cite but didn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The arbiter finds that

Philcha, I clicked on both links in the ref as it existed at the exact moment that Kainaw made his first comment. Both clickable links led to the same page. I found no mention of Chessmetrics at all on that page. I then clicked on "Download" and searched the entire pdf file for "Chessmetrics". That word appears on page 11, in the sentence I quoted above. It also appears on page 23, in the pdf's "References" section.

You will forgive me for belaboring the obvious here: I looked at the actual reference actually cited in the actual version of the Wikipedia article at the actual moment that Kainaw made his first comment. It contains no support for Chessmetrics' notability. If you (or someone else) accidentally cited the wrong source, that is not my, or Kainaw's, fault. You cannot expect editors to judge notability based on the version of a source that you meant to cite but didn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

---

For the user's opinion, his talk page has sock puppet accusations, plus he only made intermediate edits to the section after I marked that section (with an insertion then less than 5 seconds later an undo--stating in my edit summary that I'm going to get feedback) so either he wasn't trying to be disruptive, or its coincidence that all of a sudden after I mark my spot to work on, he comes in and does some intermediate edits which block my ability to restore! I hate people that do that!

Less than 30 minutes! Whenever somebody edits just one section of an article, they can "undo" their own edit, but it saves it in place. When that ip guy done intermediate editing, I cant do a single click to restore. It will give the error message "this edit can't be undone due to intermediate editing". Given that he only edits chess articles, a natural possibility might be that he may see me as a troll who has an "agenda[15]" to wreck chess on wikipedia.

Lastly, I'll accept that chessbase link is superior because I have a conflict of interest. But that zero framerate jumpy click thing, is so unpleasant on the eyes. Especially if you are expecting a rook move, but then the action takes place on the other side of the board. Your eyes twitch because the pieces move so fast, and the animation is not smoothe because its unanimated. Sentriclecub (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll own up to my misinterpretation. I thought you believed I was criticizing Armageddon games as tie breakers. I'll admit I don't believe I can come up with a better solution for FIDE. If it were up to me, then after two tie break rounds, I would end the tournament without result. That would be a very fair thing to do. Sentriclecub (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(specifically, to me the issue is about to what means should a world champion be decided if both players are almost exactly equal in skill--I was greatly disappointed when that relatively unknown GM beat Michael Adams for the World Champion title--because that is the nature of a 64 seat round robin, if Michael adams was a 89% favorite in every match and played 6 matches to go from 64 to 32 to 16 to 8 to 4 to 2 to 1, then if he is a 89% favorite over everyone in the field of 64 players in a match, then he has less than a 50% chance of winning first place in the 64 seat tourney)

Since I edit lots of math and science articles, the best way to create a world champion, is by designing a system where the best player in the world is a huge favorite to become the world champion, and vice versa. Nigel Short on his blog wrote that he had dinner with Mr. Kasparov last nite (or the nite before last) and Kasparov said Kramnik was 52% favorite (which specifically this 4% difference is not statistically significant--i.e. its going to be a tossup over who wins). Sentriclecub (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Those quotes at the top of the reply are NOT MY WORDS. They are the words of OTHER PEOPLE om my talk page. (And this is obvious from the context on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kainaw).

Therefore I still expect a retraction of your allegations. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I will delete this reply when I'm finished writing. Sentriclecub (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Archiving

Yes, Mr. Ballard you are correct. I fully apologize and prior to your post here I had already began to see the magnitude of my huge error.

1. 06:26, 16 October 2008 Sentriclecub creation of archive
2. 06:33, 16 October 2008 Peter Ballard (Talk | contribs) (59,740 bytes) (→Sentriclecub's incivility on the talk page at World chess championship 2008: retractions, please) (undo)
3. 06:33, 16 October 2008 Sentriclecub (Talk | contribs) (59,783 bytes) (planning to archive in the next day & a half or two days) (undo)

In my work in journalism, the following syntax of quotation marks, a statement, and a person's name is unmistakeably meaningful.

"We told [Sentriclecub] there was a good ref in the article and he refused do accept it." User Talk:Peter Ballard.

I was wrong, it was supposed to mean this:

"We told [Sentriclecub] there was a good ref in the article and he refused do accept it." User:Philcha [16]

Here's a selection of quotes that supported the first interpretation:

here is his denial of being the one who said it.

If you have a browser such as firefox or mozilla, you can hit "control f" to search for keywords. If you type "smear" it is mentioned three times.

Obviously, the arbiter would have pressed the issue on Philcha if he saw these edits [17] [18] [19]

And this one [20] mainly:

wikiproject chess conversation page

Chessmetrics article under threat

A couple of people are insisting that Chessmetrics should be deleted - see Talk:Chessmetrics. You may find this diff interesting. -- Philcha (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe your insinuation is poorer than the incivility you alleged from the other page. I only came to him because he is 100% neutral. He and I have only interacted one time in our life, and we were on opposite sides, and I accused him of wikilawyering and he accused me of practicing medicine. I wanted the opinion of a "tell it like it is" person, who has numerous reminders about not being so blunt. Look at his talk page and archives filled with "please tone it down" reminders. He is straightup, tell-it-like-it-is, and his brute honesty comes accross as possibly offensive. I knew no one better to ask. I have never done him any favors, nor him for me. I just knew Philca's tactic would be to question, doubt, and over analyze every one of my 500 strong edit history. Luckily, you'll find I have zero experience with kainaw except for a tooth-question on the reference desk, and we disagreed constantly. Plus he has zero interest in chess I believe, so that's an added layer of neutrality. I never would try to underhandedly influence any discussions which I'm a part of. I am a logician, and a good listener, who could ask for more from someone on the opposite side of a discussion. Plus I'm a Capa fan. Sentriclecub (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made no insinuations. I admit to making your statement of objectives public. I don't mind if other people quote me, so long as they do so accurately and in context. -- Philcha (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All of Philca's denials coupled with Kainaw's ambiguous use of syntax lead to my conclusion. It was only after I tried to find your edit, that I saw that it was Philca who wrote it about me, not you. Sentriclecub (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Public Apology to Mr. Ballard

See the bottom section of the archive for the whole story, but someone put quotation marks around Philca's statement, and attributed it to Mr. Ballard and the arbiter at kainaw's RFC believed Philca's denial[21] of smearing my username.

Mr. Ballard, I'm truly sorry and I hope you believe my explanation and accept my apology so that we can continue to make improvements to this article and other chess articles in the future. Sentriclecub (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. Apology accepted. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1