Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review

Self-nominate one could say, currently B-class. This article is well referenced, has relevant images and I believe is clearly written. I don't think anything major is missing. I also had it reread by an expert bughouse player (2400+ on FICS) and ran it through auto-peerreviewer. Voorlandt 08:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks very good to me. The article was in much worse shape a few months ago. I especially like the animated sample game. IanOsgood 23:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I ran the article through an automatic peer-review and it found no problem. It looks one of the best chess articles I have seen, certainly better than some other ones nominated for A-class test. I still have the following remarks (a tad mean, I agree):

• there seem to be a broken link to BabasChess
  • At some point there was an article on Babaschess, however I don't think one red link is problematic (see my view User:Voorlandt) Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• it would be nice to have a footnote for the origin of the name "Bughouse"
  • It actually says in the second paragraph of the lead Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• the sentence "Bughouse chess seems to have developed early 1960s independently in different places" seems to be the only "History" section, which is a bit too light.
  • This is a weak point of the article and I am not sure how to improve this. I tried hard to find other sources but failed. The closest I got was an email from the editor of the bughouse newsletter (1992-1994) by Jeremy Graham who could confirm this estimate from memory. I now added a few words acknowledging the fact that little is known (so readers don't feel like information is being held back) Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• the article says that bughouse is the normal chess rules plus some special rules, but there is no link to "normal chess rules" (maybe in the "See also" section ?).
  • if you click on chess on that line, it actually redirects to the chess rules Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• the sentence "Dropped pawns may promote, but convert back to pawns when captured" may be expanded, as I do not see how it can work in practice (OK, I have never played bughouse). Do you place a queen on the board or do you let the pawn ? In both cases, how do you remember what it is ?
  • This was quite unclear indeed, I added an extra line explaining it. Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• is there a way to make a direct link to "clock move", instead of the slightly less direct link to List_of_chess_terms#C ?
  • I don't think so, but maybe someone else knows. Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• the "Variations" section briefly indicates that bughouse may be played by mail, but it should be mentioned in the main section first.
  • Do you mean the lead? If so, I don't think it is important enough to be mentioned there, since play by mail is not that common.
• the "over the board" section repeats that "Bughouse seems to have developed early 1960s", which is already told in the main section.
  • Removed it from the lead. Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• would it be possible to add a few "bughouse champions" who are NOT also "normal chess" champions ?
  • Thanks a lot for encouraging this, I added the most important ones (with ref) Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• references do not seem to be sorted.
  • I think they are, but maybe missing something (Manson, Penn, Pritchard, Zimmerman). Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, a great article that deserves a A-class! SyG 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for reading it so thoroughly!, your review was really useful and I think it improved the article Voorlandt 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have put this article as GA-class, waiting for a third positive review before passing it as A-class. Anyone? SyG 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

'Support' I'm impressed with this - I'm a huge chess fan but had never heard of bughouse until I saw the article - well referenced, informative, etc. Some sections do need more depth really, but considering it's not hugely well known the lack of information is understandable. Obviously to get to FA it will need more in these areas, but I'd put it as A-class. Oh, and I've just corrected half a dozen grammar/phrasing errors in the openings paragraph, which now reads much better. Addyboy 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for going through it! I rewritten the openings section after a few comments from friends, but obviously without rereading it properly. Which sections do you think need expanding? I think the main material is there, except for the history, for which unfortunately very little information is available. Voorlandt 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Close the review Finally a third support has arrived, thanks to Addyboy! As no major remarks seem pending and no one has opposed, I shall close this review and assess as A-class. Applause to Voorlandt for having improved this article so much in the past months. Next step is FAC, I guess! SyG 14:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This article, primarily written by me, is, I think, very well-researched and referenced, covers the topic thoroughly, and as best I can tell, satisfies all the criteria for A-class. Quale wrote on the article's talk page, "I think it's very good, and your sections and section titles are much better than the ones I was thinking about. I'm bumping the rating to B. I would say it's an A-class article, but many WP:CHESS members think that the project A-rating requires a (semi-)formal review." Krakatoa (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly a very fine article, well researched and documented. I have only two minor style issues, and they are not that big and could go either way.

1. Capitalization of "black" and "white". Usually these are when they are substitutes for a player's name, otherwise not, e.g. "then Black played..." when referring to a person, but "... the black queen... ". So maybe these should not be caps in the article. But I'm not sure.
2. Percent. The "%" character is used several times, and the style is that "%" is used in scientific work and in tables, info boxes etc, and that "percent" is used otherwise in text. This is no big deal.

Bubba73 (talk), 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address the % issue now, substituting "percent" where reasonably possible. But I think doing so in a sentence like this would result in a nightmare: "Streeter found that overall White scored +38% =31% -31% (total 53.5%); in 1851-78, White scored +46% =14% -40% (total 53%); in 1881-1914, White scored +37% =32% -31% (total 53%); in 1914-32, White scored +37% =37% -26% (total 55.5%)." Compare "Streeter found that overall White scored +38 percent =31 percent -31 percent (total 53.5 percent); in 1851-78, White scored +46 percent =14 percent -40 percent (total 53 percent); in 1881-1914, White scored +37 percent =32 percent -31 percent (total 53 percent); in 1914-32, White scored +37 percent =37 percent -26 percent (total 55.5 percent)." Unbelievably long, cumbersome, and ugly; the reader will be asleep by the time he/she staggers to the end of that sentence. I think that in effect, a sentence like this one is a "table," so use of the % symbol rather than the word is appropriate.

As for capitalization of "white" and "black," I think the article does so appropriately. I don't believe that a phrase like "the black queen" ever occurs in it. Invariably, the article uses the two words to refer to the player(s) conducting the white or black pieces. I think that in that context "White" and "Black" are correct and almost universally used. See, e.g., The Oxford Companion to Chess (1st ed. 1984), p. 297 (article on "SCHLIEMANN DEFENCE") ("By playing 3...f5 Black weakens the diagonal a2-g8, but Jaenisch felt that his move might be practicable because White has not placed his light bishop on this diagonal."); Suba, Dynamic Chess Strategy, p. 134 ("Even the symmetrical variations of some openings present White with a critical moment at an early stage and he cannot progress without making concessions to Black."); Watson, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch, p. 231 (among many other examples on this page and those following, "White maintained a 56%/44% winning percentage for most of the century . . . . But it is also true that some of the world's top players have scored brilliantly with Black."). Krakatoa (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked about the use of white and black on the help desk. I got two replies and they agreed with my thinking: Wikipedia:Help_desk#capitalization_of_.22white.22_and_.22black.22_in_chess. Bubba73 (talk), 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what you asked: "This is a style issue - when should "white" and "black" be capitalized when talking about chess? My understanding is that they should only be capitalized when substituting for a proper name, such as "... White played the queen...", and not otherwise, such as "the black pieces". Is that correct?" I don't believe the article ever uses a phrase like "black pieces"/"Black pieces" so your example doesn't seem apropros. The article uses "White" and "Black" to refer to the collective results of persons playing the white pieces and persons playing the black pieces, respectively. As I said above, that as far as I can tell is the approach universally taken by chess writers (I cited the Oxford Companion to Chess, Suba, and Watson, and can add more if you like). What sentences in the article do you consider defective in this respect? To give a hypothetical, do you think that in a sentence like, "Statistics show that White scores 55 percent and Black 45 percent." "White" and "Black" should be lower-case, e.g. "Statistics show that white scores 55 percent and black 45 percent?" As I say, I think few if any chess writers outside of Wikipedia would write the latter. Krakatoa (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that there are respected books that use Black and White that way, but there are plenty that don't. My understanding is that it should be like a proper name - caps when substituting for a proper name. In the case of this article, it is talking about an abstract player of the white or black pieces, not a particular player. I'm no expert, and could go either way, but I think not caps unless they are substitutes for proper names of a particular person is in keeping with our style. Bubba73 (talk), 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, if "White" and "Black" are used as if a proper name would be used, even though there is no specific person, I think that is OK. So it would be "... the black queen... " versus "... Black's queen...", since in the second case, it is taking the place of a proper name. So I'm OK with that. Bubba73 (talk), 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Approve From what Bubba73 has written hereunder, I will consider he approves the article as A-class, unless he states otherwise here. SyG (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Approve Given that the comments in my review hereabover have found solutions, I approve that this article should be given A-class, on the basis of this version.

Of course there is still room for improvement so I am not sure the article would do it to FA-class. For example the interesting comments made by Voorlandt on the Talk page of the article about the relativity of the advantage depending on the level of players. But as long as there is no source it is difficult to work further on that. SyG (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hereunder are my comments and proposals for improvements, based on the review of this version of the article.

in the Lead

• The link between the first sentence and the second one may not be clear for an outsider, because in the first sentence we talk about "advantage" and in the second one we talk about "more chances to win", without doing an explicit link between these two notions. After all, an "advantage" could also be "less chances to lose" ? Y Done

I think I've tied these up, see what you think. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The expression "scoring between 53 and 56 percent overall" in the second sentence is unclear for an outsider, even if it is explained in later sections. It may be understood that White wins 53% of the games, which is not what is meant. Y Done

note added to explain this Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The word "theorists" may not be clear for an outsider. What is a theorist, especially regarding chess ? Y Done

As mentioned below, in response to SunCreator, I intend to write an article on chess theory (i.e. opening, middlegame, endgame theory) and link to that.

• The expression "best play by both sides" may be worth a link to something (an article on Game theory ?) because for a non-game expert it may not be clear. Y Done

Not sure what to link to; doesn't seem to be addressed in game theory. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is some discussion of that at Endgame tablebase, but not enough in my opinion. Perhaps that could be a small article, or probably better a term. Bubba73 (talk), 02:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to the "perfect play" section of Solved game, so I consider this DONE. SyG (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the sentence "the game should conclude in a win for White or a draw", why not adding a link to Draw (chess) ?Y Done

I also created a chess term for "win" and linked to that. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is an obvious typo in the sentence "a game of chess should conclude in a draw with best draw". I will correct that. Y Done

• The first sentence implies that White actually has an advantage, which is not proven by anyone. At first I thought that this was a problem and maybe the sentence should be phrased like "the probable advantage", but now I think it is not so bad because the third sentence clearly states that there is consensus on that. Y Done

I take it this is OK, then. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Lead does not reflect the last paragraph of the last section, in which it is hinted that moving first may not be an advantage. Y Done

in the section "First move statistics"

• Maybe the first paragraph would look better as a table.

I don't know how to do this. Maybe someone else could do this? Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a table. I'm not sure if how it looks is appropriate. With/without border, what should be listed, to go at the beginning/middle or end of paragraph. All questions I don't have a clear answer to. SunCreator (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC).

• The use of signs +, = and - is not explained, nor is the way to reach a total percentage. Y Done

• The phrasing "More recently (in 2005)" is a bit redundant and heavy, the first two words would be sufficient. Y Done

• I do not understand the structure of the second paragraph. It looks like just a list of evidences, which is good but could read better with one or two sentences to add fluidity or insight.Y Done

I added an explanatory sentence at the beginning of the paragraph.

in the section "Drawn with best play"

• I find the formulation "The classical view is that White's objective is to extend" a bit heavy because of the repetition of "is". Why not something like "In the classical view, White's objective is to extend" ? But as I am not a native English-speaker, please tell me if I am wrong.Y Done

sentence rewritten Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the first sentence I would replace the verb "secure" by "reach", otherwise the reader may think that equality always remains once achieved.Y Done

• What assesses Weaver Adams as "prominent" ? Y Done

Wrote reference explaining this. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the second sentence of the second paragraph, I do not understand why the first letter of the quote is in upper case. Is it compliant with WP:MOS ? Y Done

I think so. Look at these examples given (not addressing this exact point, admittedly) under Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation_marks:

Correct: Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable."

(The period is part of the quoted text.)

Correct: Martha asked, "Are you coming?"

Krakatoa (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Bubba73 (talk), 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

allright then, DONE for me. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• According to WP:ELLIPSES, I think the three dots in the quote of Watson should be in brackets, like [...] Y Done

I don't see why. The guideline you cite says "An ellipsis does not normally need square brackets around it, since its function is usually obvious—especially if the guidelines above are followed. But square brackets may optionally be used for precision, to make it clear that the ellipsis is not itself quoted; this is usually only necessary if the quoted passage also uses three period in it to indicate a pause or suspension." The quoted passage doesn't use three periods in it, so square brackets are not necessary. Krakatoa (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. The brackets are generally only used around an ellipsis if you use an ellipsis in a quote that already has one. Bubba73 (talk), 03:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

allright then, DONE for me. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

in the section "White to Play and Win"

• According to WP:HEAD, the names of sections shall not include "special characters", although I am not sure the character " should be considered as special.Y Done

• I find it problematic to name the section with the title of a book, while this section talks about other things than the book.Y Done

I have removed the quotation marks, so the title now is not just an allusion to the book. I think the title is a good one to tersely capure the concept -- especially since I reference Berliner saying that he is a disciple of Adams. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The player Horowitz shall be refered to by his full name (i.e. including surname), in order to be consistent with all the others and to avoid any REDIRECT link. Y Done

I have slightly changed the link in order to avoid any REDIRECT. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hans Berliner should be presented as "a former World [...]" and not "the former World [...]". Y Done

• Jeremy Silman should be presented as "International Master" and not "IM", in order to be consistent with all the others.Y Done

I think I've addressed this. The first International Master I cited, I used "International Master," for the next one I used IM and then just an unwikified "IM" thereafter.

OK, not a big deal anyway, DONE for me. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Randy Bauer and Taylor Kingston are quoted but their credibility is not explained. Why are they authoritative ? It seems Randy Bauer is not even an IM ?Y Done

I removed the text references to Bauer and Kingston (though they're still mentioned as references). They're respected reviewers, I think, but I don't know what (if anything) their titles are. I don't think either is an IM. As I say, I would dearly love to get hold of the Watson review, in which case I would probably just quote him and forget about Bauer and Kingston altogether. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is an undue space before the 26th reference. I will correct that. Y Done

in the section "Modern perspectives"

• There are undue spaces in "1. e4" and "1. d4" in the quotation of Kaufman. Y Done

Originally, I quoted him as he wrote it (same thing with others who wrote "1 e4" and such). For the sake of consistency, I've changed this sort of thing to "1.e4" and "1.d4" with a parenthetical note added to the reference "(notation form changed)." Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

others

• Are there no players/experts who have argued that Black may have an advantage ? Y Done

Rowson has a chapter on Black's advantages. I am inclined to add subsections to the article on "The nature of White's advantage(s)" and "The nature of Black's advantage(s)."

I think the new sections you added are great to present Black's points. DONE for me. SyG (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Shall we speak about players who have better statistics with black than with White (maybe Morozevich ?, although I have not checked his statistics) ?

Perhaps, if you know of such players. I've never heard of any GMs who consistently score better with Black than with White. I would think that there would probably have to be some significant number of such players, not just one, to make it worth writing about. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I happened upon a thread at chessgames.com talking about Morozevich's excellent results with Black. On this page malthrope writes, "Just looking quickly over his stats here on CG.com we get... Database of 969 games with Moro winning 410 times... Wins with White 220 (53.66%) Wins with Black 190 (46.34%)" I haven't checked the math, but if malthrope is right even Morozevich does better with White than Black (I'm assuming that the 969 games are split roughly evenly between the two colors). Krakatoa (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Shall we speak about those openings like the exchange variation of the French defence where it is sometimes felt that Black has a kind of advantage even if the position is symetric, precisely because White has to move first ? Y Done

I've added sections on "Reversed openings" and "Symmetrical openings" and the problems those pose for White, and specifically discuss the Exchange French. Krakatoa (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no section "See also". It is not compulsory to have some, but I find they add some value. Y Done

All in all I am really impressed by this article. It is factual, precise and well-referenced on a subject that is really not easy. At the end of this review I would like to propose it to GA-class at least. For A-class, let's wait until the end of this review :) SyG (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

(Moved from the articles talk page.): Don't think headings should be in quotes. "Drawn with best play", "White to play and win" and Statistics is a short ambiguous(on it's own) word for a title.Y Done

Done a peer review and this is bits I think apply.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. The lead is to be as concise as possible while still covering the whole article. It seems to do that. Y Done

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?] Y Done

• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?] Y Done

• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]Y Done

• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]Y Done

• Reflist 2 has come under criticism as it doesn't show well on various browsers and for some it makes the wording so small it can't be read. Y Done

SunCreator (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added links, and created a few articles and sub-articles to make links to, so I think that is pretty much done. Please link anything else that you think should be linked. I do intend to create a chess theory article, and link to that when I talk about "theorists," but that will take some work. (I want to talk about opening theory, middlegame theory, and endgame theory.) As for the lead, the guideline says it can be "up to four paragraphs" and should summarize the article well. The current lead is one paragraph (while doesn't violate the guideline, since no minimum length is specified), and I think it summarizes the article well. So I think I've addressed all the items in your peer review. Krakatoa (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing you linked to is entitled "Multiple columns deemed bad." I don't see how that applies to this article -- its reference list only has one column. Note 1 is followed by note 2, then note 3, note 4, and so on until the last note, which is at the bottom. That's one column, right? Krakatoa (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For me (using Firefox browser) it shows as two columns that's because it's using {{reflist|2}}} to use only one column it would just be {{reflist}}. SunCreator (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change now. I would not apply this to other article but only here because I think the idea is to push this article to Featured article level. SunCreator (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Neanderthal that I am, I use Internet Explorer, so I couldn't see the problem. I'm gratified to think that you think the article could be a Featured Article. As you know, we have precious few chess article (0.2%) above even B-class. Krakatoa (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics section

I think consideration should be given to splitting up this section and include in other parts of the article. It's sure it's fine in context but a section with statistics might not be to welcomed by some reviewers. SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, the statistics section is in a way the most significant part of the article. It's all well and good to debate, in a vacuum, propositions like, "does White win by force from the starting position"?, "does White have an advantage, and if so, how much?", "does Black have the advantage, because White has to commit himself first?", and so on. The statistics section provides data against which such questions must be considered -- i.e. it's hard to claim that White wins by force if Black scores around 45% (including in games by the strongest players). I also think it would be weird to split this information up, apportioning a sentence to this section, a sentence to that section, and so on. All of the information in the "First move statistics" section is closed related and belongs together. Krakatoa (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the statistics are important and should remain in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

They are important. Two more suggestions, how about renaming the section so the word 'Statistics' is not included. how about moving the section down to the end of the articles order, so that it like a concluding section. SunCreator (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What is one supposed to name it without using the word "statistics"? "Winning percentages"? How is that better? What's the bugaboo about statistics? Krakatoa (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wild about moving the statistics section down to the end. It provides important information necessary to evaluate the relative plausibility of the "Drawn with best play" and "White to play and win" arguments. It's really hiding the ball to put it at the end ("hiding the lede," as some would put it). Does putting it at the beginning violate any Wikipedia principle? Krakatoa (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, is see you;ve renamed it, that seems good. I can't recall where I read about it. It wasn't a guideline, but rather some talk page but I'm unable to locate it to recheck it's context. The nearest I found is Wikipedia:NOT#STATS but that doesn't apply because this article has the statistics nicely explained. SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor points

From this version.

• How about caption below the image of Wilhelm Steinitz. At first glance the image looks unrelated to the topic. I don't want to add OR, but if there is something along the lines of "Wilhelm Steinitz considered chess a draw with best play", that would enhance the image. Y Done
• Review tool, still thinks lead is inadequate. Looking at a (good length) suggestion of Wikipedia:Lead here, it seems sensible to expand the lead to be two paragraphs. Reading the FA criteria I get the idea that concise is better, if so then it's great as it is. SunCreator (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Use of capitalisation "White" "white" "Black" "black", especially in winning percentages section is not consistent. Are we happy that it's correct? Y Done I think(!?).
• +38% =31% −31% (total 53.5%) looks unattractive. How about some other way, perhaps "Win 38% Draw 31 % Lose 31%" or putting it in full "White wins 38% draws 31%, and loses 31% giving an overall result of 53.5%". Or even removing some of it given that it's now duplicated to the table. Y Done
• "concluded that White scored 54.1767% plus 0.001164 times White's Elo rating advantage, treating White's rating advantage as +390 if it is better than +390, or -460 if it is worse than -460." ref 10. This doesn't make sense to me at all. It is very interesting that the external reference recommends 35-[elo]-point rating deficit for White to compensate for White's advantage(!). Would seem useful to this article.
• Is "Hodgson-Arkell" self evident? Rather then say "Hodgson versus Arkell" and why not go to full names Julian Hodgson-Keith Arkell?
• Why are some moves bold while others "1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.0-0 0-0 5.d3 d6" are not?
• Ref 70 (Reinhard-Fischer game) is not as you might at first expect(with Fischer's claim), perhaps the comma should go outside the reference, or the sentence reworded to be clear what reference refers to what?
• Is sentence wording "defended tenaciously" with ref 79 (Portisch-Tal game) OR? Y Done (changed wording)
• Solvable? How about adding something as discussed in Talk:First_move_advantage_in_chess#Can_it_be_solved Article has more then enough content already. SunCreator (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• In "See also" is it best to use Draw (chess) or Draw? Y Done as it's been removed.
• Further reading is not in alphabetical order as suggest by Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Further_reading Y Done
• Wikipedia linking doesn't seem to like ISBN-10 and ISBN-13, perhaps it should just be ISBN. Applies to some references as well as some future reading books. Y Done SunCreator (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about "+38% =31% −31%" there, and in hundreds of other articles. Bubba73 (talk), 15:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Y Done (as to this article, not the hundreds of others; now we use W38 D31 D31 format, which I (Krakatoa) think is clearer to non-chess players).

Support This article is very well written and nicely referenced. I therefore support upgrading this article to class A. Two minor comments.

• I am not sure I like the statistics table, since it doesn't add very much. Instead perhaps a few other more interesting statistics can be added. I started a threat on the talk page of the article with suggestions. If the table stays, it would be nice to centre it on the page, or even better to have the text left and the table right in that section (like the chessdiagrams below, nicely embedded in the text).
• Currently the article is in the Category:Chess. As the category page says: "It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories". Perhaps it would be nice to create a master category chess theory, where this article would feel very much at home. Subcategories could include Category:Chess tactics, Category:Chess strategy, Category:Chess traps and Category:Chess openings. This would be very much in line with what we have done to all the chess bio categories, we grouped them in one master category Category:Chess biographies.
• For FA, the web links in the reference should be changed, that is, they should mention when the webpage was retrieved (or accessed), for the format see Wikipedia:Embedded_citations Y Done

Voorlandt (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2008

[edit] All concerns addressed?

As best I can tell, all the concerns expressed about the article (by Bubba73, SyG, and SunCreator) have now been addressed, and I think to the satisfaction of the proponents of those concerns?

A couple of other random things: (1) I like SunCreator's table (under "Winning Percentages"), but it looks a little funky to me. Is there a way to make the horizontal line for database 1475-2008 go all the way across, and to make all the vertical lines go all the way down? (2) I think the first two words in the article title should be hyphenated: First-move advantage in chess. Anyone else have an opinion on that?

Thanks for all your help with the article! Krakatoa (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I am not sure I understand your comment on the statistics table, as in my browser there is a horizontal line all the way across, but I am using Firefox. Is it because you may be using Internet Explorer ?
2. I agree the current title may be slightly confusing, as someone may think it is about the first "move advantage" that a player gets in chess. I would like to have the opinion of other editors before we change it, though.
3. As you can see above I have changed my assessment from Comment to Approve for A-class. As Bubba73's comments seemed to imply he agreed as well, we just need the following steps:

• get the approval of a third reviewer. Both SunCreator (on this page) and Voorlandt (on the Talk page of the article) have done a review and provided some comments, but none has clearly stated they approved the A-class.
• wait until 3rd May 2008, as the article has been nominated on 12th April and the review needs to last at least three weeks. (frustrating, clearly, but gives enough time to everyone to join in).
• wait one week after the last comment has been made, in order to ensure noone has a last-minute objection to be made.

SyG (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it's A Class. Will look at table display issue in various browsers. SunCreator (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Above, I also said I support the A class. However they are plenty of comments here that can improve the article (see for instance Bubba's comments, and my comment on the refs). A lot of them minor, so they should be easy to fix. Can something be done about the layout of this review? It is very hard to follow as comments are scattered all over the place in no hierarchical structure. Perhaps all comments that are no longer relevant can be removed, and all other comments grouped? Voorlandt (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I approve. The title should probably be "First-move" ... An alternative is "The advantage of the first move in chess", and I don't like that. Bubba73 (talk), 15:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Y Done Hearing no objections, I've moved the article to First-move advantage in chess. Krakatoa (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Class

To me this article seems GA class right now, should it be proposed as GA or should it continue to be improved and go for FA class? SunCreator (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, whatever is decided about A-class, I intend to propose it to the GA nominations. For information, Alexander Alekhine is currently pending there. SyG (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will support it for GA. Is GA considered below A? Bubba73 (talk), 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand it is a bit different, as A-class is defined by each WikiProject, while both FA-class and GA-class have "transversal" processes about reviews (meaning any subject can be proposed). In some WikiProjects the A-class is considered just a corridor before FA-class, in others it can be a definite state. For example Bughouse Chess will have a very hard time to become FA-class because some of the remaining issues (e.g. history) just need sources that do not appear to exist! SyG (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Close out the nomination?

I count four Supports (Bubba73, SyG, SunCreator, and Voorlandt), one more than necessary, and no opposition. It's officially May 3 Wikipedia time, and I believe more than one week since the last comment. Does someone want to close out the nomination? Krakatoa (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see noone opposing to this article being uprated, so I shall close the review and declare this article has successfully passed the A-class review. Well done, and thanks to all for your work! SyG (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have put a ton of work into this article, and think it is quite comprehensive, well-sourced, and has excellent examples. I have looked at a lot of sources, and I frankly think that this article covers the subject better than anything I've seen in the literature. There are a lot of books along the lines of "How to Defend Difficult Positions," such as "The Art of Defense in Chess" (Soltis), "The Art of Defence in Chess" (Polugaevsky/Damsky), etc., but there is not much on swindles as such: how to try to rescue yourself from a clearly lost position. And I haven't seen anything that treats swindles in a comprehensive way, as this article does. Apart from Marshall, who reveled in swindles, most authors tend to shy away from the subject, considering swindles somehow uncouth. Even great swindles usually don't make it into players' "best games" collections, since people like to show off games where they played brilliantly the entire way, rather than games where they played badly, got lost positions, then bamboozled their way out. (For example, Bouaziz-Miles, a swindling masterpiece, is not in Miles' biography, and Karpov's "My 300 Best Games" doesn't include Karpov-Csom. Very few players have ever heard of Beliavsky-Christiansen, maybe the greatest swindling game of all time.) Anyway, enough blathering. I hope you like the article. Thanks for your consideration. Krakatoa (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)/

WITHDRAWN BY PROPONENT This article is obviously unworthy, and should be deleted instead. Krakatoa (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks a lot for your work on this article, it looks very comprehensive. I don't have time to go through it now, but I can tell you that the biggest hurdle to get this article featured will be (a) the topic, (b) the style of the article. This is the sad reality of featured articles! Now I am not saying that the topic isn't worth being featured, or that the article is written in a bad style, just saying that if you are trying to make this article featured, you should be prepared being attacked on both. I ran the article to the automatic peerreviewer bot, and here is the output (this should help improving (b)):

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question:

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, didn't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]

Voorlandt (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I will definitely look into all of that. I didn't realize that getting an article featured was such a ritual, although I should have expected as much. I don't generally look at the featured articles, but looked at today's on the Philadelphia Inquirer. No doubt it's impolitic to say so, but I was pretty underwhelmed. Ungrammatical sentences, at least one misspelling, whole paragraphs making assorted factual assertions without a single reference, etc. Krakatoa (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I am just mentioning it, since I had a rather bad experience with Bughouse Chess. For the article I read several books, spend weeks researching and contacted a dozen of people for info. In my obviously biased opinion it is the most balanced and complete essay ever written on bughouse. Nevertheless, it was critized for its length and for the lack of history section. Although it is hardly my fault the history is unknown! What matters for FA more is (1) the topic; (2) the length of the article and perhaps the most important one (3) whether it looks good! Shorter articles, with less text are read far more thoroughly than long articles, and therefore far more prone to critic. I have also seen many long FA articles riddled with mistakes. That said, don't let my bad experience discourage you. The first step is of course getting this article through A and GA review. I think it needs a little bit more work, but not much. Voorlandt (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bughouse chess indeed looks like a very thorough article, and I'm sorry you didn't make it. But I appreciate learning of your unhappy experience: that way I won't take it too hard when Swindle (chess) gets shot down . . . . Krakatoa (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments This is clearly a very good article on a difficult and understudied subject. Apart from Voorlandt's comments, here are some additional remarks if we want to narrow the gap to FA-class:

• The article includes Original Analysis, and that is forbidden in Wikipedia! See for example the 38th reference.
• In the lead, I do not understand the difference between the first sentence "In chess, a swindle is a ruse by which a player [...] achieves a win or draw instead of the expected loss" and the second sentence "It may also refer more generally to obtaining a win or draw from a clearly losing position". Probably the first sentence refers to one-mover and the second is more general, but this could be more explicit.
• As the lead states that certain players [...] have become famous for their swindling exploits, I would expect to see a section in the article on famous swindlers (with due references, of course), otherwise it is just reckoning.
• Some diagrams have a legend that is too long. I would expect the legends to be no more than one line.
• I would suggest to systematically include in the legend of the diagrams the move number at which is position is obtained.
• Most sections in Recurrent themes are just a collection of examples. Would it be possible to add a bit more substance (I mean, some general considerations in each chapter) to make it a bit more "encyclopedic" ?
• In the section Perpetual check there are interesting remarks about the pieces that are good for attack but suddenly bad for defence, making it impossible to the player to adapt to the new situation. Maybe these considerations could be generalised, developped and put into the section Practical consideration as they are not valid only for perpetual check.
• The section Practical consideration is the most encyclopedic one. In order to promote it, I would propose to put it before the section Recurrent themes, and to split it into different subsections (for the moment it is too long).
• There seems to be some syntax problems here and there (although I am a pure patzer in syntax), just to name a few:
  • The first sentence of the section Classic example lacks an ending point.
  • Same section, the second sentence has a reference placed in the middle of the text, which is not in line with the Formating Guidelines, as far as I know.
  • Same section, sentence but Marshall saw an opportunity for "a last 'swindle", there seems to be a lonesome comma in the quotation.
  • In "de Firmian-Shirazi", in the sentence "since 31.Qxe4 allows 31...Rfl#." there is a "l" instead of a "1".
  • The sentence "Draw by perpetual check is another oft-seen way of swindling" when the word "often" is misspelled.
  • The sentence "However, Krogius warns that one should deliberately get into time trouble only after after a detailed assessment of a number of considerations" contains twice the word "after".
• There is no History section; that could be useful to know if there are more or less swindles than in the past, e.g. due to the improvement of chess computers.
• There is no example with a chess computer, whereas I believe they are very good in swindles due to their great tactical abilities.
• The consequences of famous swindles could be explained further, e.g. for "the swindle of the century".
• In the Stalemate section, a sentence says "Another famous Marshall swindle is Marshall-MacClure, New York 1923 (diagram at right)" while I understand it should be "(diagram at left)".
• In the Weak back rank section, the first sentence says "Mating threats along the opponent's back rank often enable one to win or draw from a lost position." which is precisely the definition of swindles, if I understand correctly. Therefore a more consise formulation could be something like "Mating threats along the opponent's back rank often enable one to swindle."
• Having the diagrams first and the explanations next could be found a bit confusing for the casual reader, especially as there is no clear separation between the different articles. Maybe sometimes some subsections could be used ?
• In the example "Chigorin-Schlechter, Ostend 1905", I find there are too many exclamation marks in the explanations, as I would only give an exclamation mark to 44...Qc7, the other ones being nor difficult to find, nor forced.
• I do not see the point of putting wikilinks for years, like 1997, especially when the sentence has nothing special to do with the concerned year.
• The article contains some Id. references that do nothing apart from taking space, while it is better in Wikipedia to cite several times the same reference without creating a separate line every time.
• In the first sentence about "de Firmian-Shirazi", we can read "GM de Firmian is ahead three pawns" while I am not sure it has been explained above that "GM" stands for Grandmaster ? Same remark for "IM Shirazi".
• The difference between a swindle and a blunder is not clearly explained. I mean, do you have a swindle every time there is a trick in the position ? Or is it only when you play second-best move that sets up a trap ?
• I am not sure the "Zukertort-Steinitz, London 1883" example is a good one, as I do not see the swindle. I mean, Black has sacrificed an exchange to decentralised the White queen and get an attack, then the attack succeeds because White blunders. But where is the ruse ?
• Same remark on "Donner-Fischer": is it really a swindle ? it looks like just a blunder from Fischer.
• Same remark on most of the examples in the Material insufficiency section: not really swindles to me, just good play from the side with the less material. This is acknowledgeg in the article, but then why keep them here ? A good example of swindle could be the recent game "Grischuck-Polgar" when Polgar managed to save a K+N+2P/K+N endgame.
• Very generally, in a FA review there could be some critics regarding the need for an article on the subject, for example:
  • What is the need for an article on "swindling in chess" ? I mean, there could just be an article called "Swindle (games)" ? Is there any way swindles in chess are particular, e.g. compared with swindles in Go or Checkers ?
  • Why is this theme encyclopedic, and not just trivia ? Given the references, it seems noone has bothered to publish some work dedicated to this subject, so maybe this is just a collection of anecdotes ?
  • Why is this theme encyclopedic, and not just a definition ? Why not just moving the definition to Wiktionnary, instead of an article in Wikipedia ?

I hope you don't find these comments too harsh or pointy, of course the aim is just to improve the article and maybe prepare a FA review, which are often very depressing. SyG (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Close the review As the nominator has withdrawn the nomination for the article, I shall close the review. SyG (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose No photo ChessCreator (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Currently assessed as A-Class by User:Ioannes Pragensis. Any objections? youngvalter 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Object per peerreviewer (especially the Lead and Trivia section and own comments below). The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), favourite (B) (American: favorite), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), traveled (A) (British: travelled).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• I also think that the General references section could be expanded. Currently there is listed 1 biography and 3 general reference works. It would be nice to list a few biographies.
• Needs more in text references (using footnotes). Voorlandt 07:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Object for most of Voorlandt's reasons, and some other minor points below. This is already a great article with a lot of useful content, but it is not A-class status (which is near-perfection in my view).

• it is a pity that the "Early life" section does not indicate when Alekhine first learned chess.
• more generally, the details on his family are too scarce. I would appreciate dates of birth/death of his father/mother, the age of his mother when she gave him birth, the age difference between him and his brothers/sisters (I find it relevant because they have taught him to play).
• most sections are too compact. For example the "Early chess career" is roughly a list for the moment, so maybe we could organise it as a list ?
• maybe we should point out that the "Grandmaster of chess" title from the tsar was the first time this distinction was used ?
• there are sometimes some opinions, like "On December 15, 1935 Max Euwe fortunately had won". Why is it fortunate ? "narrowly" would sound more neutral to me.
• some citations are needed for assessments like "The loss is largely attributed to Alekhine's alcoholism".
• the "Contributions" section may be expanded.
• all quotations should be referenced.
• the "References" section does not seem to be sorted SyG 13:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Close this review As noone has garnered here for one week to add something, this review is finished and the article has failed its test for A-class (2 negative opinions, 0 positive opinions). As it is still a very good article, I will change it to GA-class. SyG 10:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently assessed as A-Class by User:Ioannes Pragensis. I'd agree with this - although not promoted to FA, it seems all concerns were addressed, but people got bored with it after it was stayed as an FAC for six weeks. youngvalter 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, I think the article largely satisfies the criteria, there are however a few points where the article could be improved. Here is what peerreviewer had to say: (plus one comment from myself). The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: recognize (A) (British: recognise), isation (B) (American: ization), analyze (A) (British: analyse), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Are the sections "play with God" and "nomenclature" really necessary? Maybe they could be incorporated in some other section.Voorlandt 07:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the material in those sections is OK. If Thompson had not used the "play chess with God" phrase, I'd rather call it an oracle or something. But I think it is OK as is. I think the nomenclature section is important to distinguish it from a simple database of endgames. But both of these sections are only one relatively short paragraph, so perhaps they could be incorporated into the main body. Bubba73 (talk), 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been struggling with where to put these sections since I wrote them. I think the nomenclature section should be relegated to the "notes" or "references" section - it is not really important, but I think I need to justify why we prefer one term over other terms that have been used.

"Play chess with God" strikes me as a fine concluding section, the way I would conclude an essay on the topic. I prefer to leave it that way, but I could defend moving it to virtually any other section. A particularly bold idea would make it a "hook" in the lead section, fleshing out the significance of "perfect play" as introduced in the lead. Shalom ^Hello 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It would not make sense to put Nomenclature in Notes or References. I think it might be best to make Nomenclature the first section, to indicate to the reader that an endgame tablebase is not simply a database of endgames. It might could be called something else such as Terminology. Bubba73 (talk), 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, because I basically have one problem with most sentences:

• the caption for the picture in the lead seems too long. Actually, most captions are too long in the article. If these captions are really adding value, they ought to be incorporated in the text.
• some words in British, others in American (however I do not see that as being really important)
• the sentence "Tablebases are generated by retrograde analysis, working backwards from a checkmated position" sounds obviously wrong, as tablebases also work backward from a stalemate position or from a drawn position.
• the sentence "Tablebases have solved chess for every position with six pieces or fewer" may precise that the "six pieces" include the Kings (may sound obvious to most, but not to me).
• in the sentence "The results of the solution have profoundly advanced the chess community's understanding of endgame theory", what solution are we talking about ? what is endgame theory ? (there is no link)
• in the sentence "Positions which humans had analyzed as draws were proven to be decided", what do you mean by "decided" ? (not defined anywhere). To me, a "draw" is a decision.
• the sentence "Tablebases have enhanced competitive play" sounds like an opinion. Any reference ?
• the sentence "They provide a powerful analytical tool, enabling students of chess to discover its deepest secrets", I don't know, somehow it just does not sound "encyclopedic", more something of a commercial add for a tablebase engine
• in the sentence "In principle, it is possible to solve any game under the condition that the complete state is known and there is no random chance" I could point out that maybe we should explain/define what a game with random chance is, but that seems too nitty-gritty. Probably even the average Joe will know that.
• in the sentence "Strong solutions are known for some simple games", why do you qualify the solution as "strong" ? What is a "strong solution" ?
• in the "Background" section, second paragraph, maybe we should mention the horizon effect to explain software's weaknesses in endgames ?
• all references should be wikified, e.g. "(Levy & Newborn 1991:25-38)" should be replaced by something like [63] (after the punctuation! ;-))
• it would be cool to explain more in details the differences between Thompson tables, Nalimov tables, etc.
• the sentence "The stronger side can also win by capturing material, thus converting to a simpler endgame" should be rephrased as something like "The stronger side can also win by capturing material, thus converting to an endgame whose solution is known". Indeed, sometimes the computer goes to a much more complicated endgme (e.g. sacrificing pieces without reasons), just because it knows the solution of that last one.
• in the section "Step 1: Generating all possible positions" it should be made immediately clear that 40,000 is an approximation.
• the paragraph on the conflict between pawns and symmetry is very interesting, and should be referenced.
• in the section "Step 3: Verification", maybe we should point out that it is not a verification of thruth, but only of self-consistency. I mean, the whole tablebase could be completely wrong and still self-consistent, and then the verification program would not detect the errors, right ?
• the sentence "(However, castling is allowed by convention in composed problems and studies.)" should contain links to "composed problems" and to "studies".
• the caption for the picture in the section "Using a priori information" is long and does not really bring information relevant for the subject of "a priori information"
• in the section "Correspondence chess", I do not immediately see the link between the second paragraph and the title of the section. I mean, the 50-moves rule is applicable even in over-the-board games, in analysis session, in adjourned games, in computer chess, etc. So why should we mention it in the "Correspondence" section ?
• the section "Endgame theory" is too long if the main article is considered to be "Endgame#Effect of tablebases on endgame theory". I do not see any need to double the information in each article, so maybe we should put a very short section in one of the articles, and a very expanded one in the other.
• there is a dead link to "Harold van der Heijden"
• what is the purpose of the section "Play chess with God" ? It sounds trivia to me, and too short to be a section on its own

All in all, this article is really great and has a lot of content and a good number of refereces, but I feel there is some "wikifying" to be done. Also, the lead seems fine for anyone who ALREADY knows the subject, but I think a newcomer would be confused by some sentences. SyG 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Articles should be consistent between American/British spelling
• I thought that retrograde analysis worked back only from won positions,since everything not reaching a won position is a drawn position. But someone more familiar with it than I am should see what is correct.

Thanks for explaining that to me! If that is the case, then of course my mistake. Still, maybe we should explain this mechanism in the article. Also, how does it come with the thing that some 5 pieces vs 1 pieces are not evaluated (I have seen that in the Talk page of the article) because they are assumed to be always won ? SyG 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that they have profoundly affected endgame theory, since only a few endgame evaluations were changed, and they were mostly rare ones or ones that take more than 50 moves.
• I changed "decided" to "decisive" and added "some". Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bubba, and thanks for your interest in my comments. That gave me faith to add more! (see hereupon) SyG 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Your points are good points. I think those changes could be made without objection, except that I thought that the retrograde analysis for the tablebases started with a checkmate or conversion to a known won position, not any drawn positions. Bubba73 (talk), 13:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

SyG, those are a lot of good points, and it will take me some time to fix most of them. I'll respond quickly to one point: tablebases actually do not analyze backward from drawn positions. They only analyze won positions, and anything that's not a win is, by default, a draw. I mention this in the section on "generating tablebases", and I believe it is mentioned in at least two of the articles used as references (one each by Haworth and Krabbe). Thank you for the feedback. Shalom ^Hello 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Close the review Given that:

• the minimum three-weeks period for review is over,
• no one has made any comment for the review since 10 August 2007,
• no one has made an edit to the endgame tablebase article since 9 August 2007,
• the article has not garnered enough support for A-class, and significant points have been raised,

I shall close this review and grade the article as GA-class. The article seems close to A-class, as long as the points underlined hereupon are discussed/addressed. Of course, if you do not agree with my conclusion, I am always open to discussion. SyG 13:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Formerly assessed as A-Class by User:Ioannes Pragensis, but downgraded to B-Class by User:Triviaa. youngvalter 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Object (especially the lack of in text references). Here is what peerreviewer had to say: (plus one comment from myself). The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • correctly
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• There is one 'citation needed' template on the page. Should be fixed or otherwise that line has to go.
• Needs more in text references (using footnotes). Voorlandt 07:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for most of Voorlandt's reasons, and specifically some lack on precise references, for example:

• the Note 1 claims sentences like "Most historians consider..." and "Morphy is considered..." which are not referenced.
• the sentence "According to his uncle, Ernest Morphy, no one formally taught Morphy how to play chess" shall be referenced (maybe even the whole paragraph).
• the sentence "By the age of nine, he was considered one of the best players in New Orleans" shall be referenced.
• the sentence "Löwenthal and Anderssen both later remarked that..." should be referenced
• also, some links include redirects, it is better to do direct links
• the list of "Notable chess games" does not give any positionnal game, which seems in conflict with what is told in the section "Morphy's chess play"

Still a very impressive article, that I would state as GA-class. SyG 08:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Close the review Given that:

• the minimum three-weeks period for review is over,
• no one has made any comment for the review since 18 August 2007,
• the article has not garnered enough support for A-class, and significant issues have been raised (mostly lack of references),

I shall close this review and upgrade the article as GA-class. SyG 20:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)