Deletion of Fischer's endgame

Comment: Billbrock's comments on delete seem to indicate it was cited by Kasparov which means it meets  in that this ''person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.'' —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: No one doubts Fischer's contributions to chess.  (There is plenty of information about Fischer in WP.)  The issue is whether or not the endgame of rook and bishop versus rook and knight (with pawns) is commonly known as "Fischer's endgame", and whether or not it is notable (), which says that there should be two independant sources in order to be notable.  Fifty years before the 1971 match, Capablanca's 1921 book ''Chess Fundamentals'' states that the bishop is better.  The endgame is also discussed thirty years earlier in Fine's 1941 ''Basic Chess Endings''.  Recently, this http://www.chesscafe.com/text/mueller09.pdf article by endgame expert Karsten Muller discusses three games between Fischer and Taimanov in 1970 and 71, but does '''not''' call it "Fischer's endgame".  Also recently, ''My Great Predecessors'' by Kasparov discusses it but does '''not''' call it "Fischer's endgame".  The only source we have been able to find is the Russian one, and it is a little wishy-washy.  The translation says that "it began to be called...".  Perhaps it did began to be called "Fischer's endgame", but the name doesn't seem to have stuck.  I favor deletion on the basis that it is a non-notable stub
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)