Talk:World Chess Championship 1886

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Chess Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.

A fact from World Chess Championship 1886 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 11 December 2007.

[edit] Game 1 diagram

Black has two light-squared bishops but there are no bishop promotions in the game moves. 91.107.151.55 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it was obvious the bishop should be on c7 so I moved it. The game 20 diagram was also missing some pieces so I added these. Nevertheless, someone ought to check that the reconstructed positions are now correct. 91.107.151.55 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis

The only analysis I have done on these games is a quick scan through Fritz 6 to see if any significant blunders/very good moves were made, if anybody can do any more detailed analysis/corrections, that would be superb! Andy4226uk (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That might constitute original research. Look for published analysis instead. Bubba73 (talk), 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kasparov's My Great Predecessors vol 1 probably has some of these games annotated. Bubba73 (talk), 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Work to do

First, the White King is missing from g2 in the diagram of game 20. But more important, I was struck by This opening would never appear in a modern world championship match. The move 3.f4 gambits a key pawn from the kingside and is now considered far too weakening. Did you expect Fischer to play the Pirc against Spassky? Nobody did. People weren't expecting the resurgence of the (antique?) Scotch Game with Kasparov. Nobody expected Korchnoi to play the Dragon against Karpov. Is the King's Gambit unsound because it gambits the same pawn, a move sooner? If people want to make sweeping judgements you have to quote someone. I'm OK with editors pointing out conventional stuff and quoting Fritz would be OK to me too, but just ad libbing opinions like that is definitely not encyclopedic. Pete St.John (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the diagram. The article says that the analysis of game 20 comes from the book by Keene, so that may be the source of the text you mention. It needs to be made more specific, though. Bubba73 (talk), 16:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bubba. The Wiki is just too big, and my watchlist is too full. But I see that the diagrams can be editted easily as text, I hadn't realized that, so next time I may make fixes like that myself. The analysis, I just don't want to be in a new arguement :-) Pete St.John (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It happens that I just wrote a Windows program to generate diagrams (a lot easier than doing it manually), see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Chess diagram program Bubba73 (talk), 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)