Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 8

message: There is the List of strong chess tournaments which comprises only regular open or invitational tournaments held at classical time controls with more than four players. So, there are not such strong tournaments as:
*1879 London: 1°Henry Edward Bird, 2°-3° Joseph Henry Blackburne, James Mason, 4° George Alcock MacDonnell; 
*1895 Sankt Petersburg: 1° Emanuel Lasker, 2° Wilhelm Steinitz, 3° Harry Pillsbury, 4° Mikhail Chigorin;
*1905 Ostend: 1° Georg Marco,  2°-3° Frank Marshall, Paul Leonhardt, 4° Richard Teichmann;
*1918 Berlin: 1° Emanuel Lasker, 2° Akiba Rubinstein, 3° Carl Schlechter, 4° Siegbert Tarrasch;  
*1931 Rotterdam: 1° Salo Landau, 2° Edgar Colle, 3° Savielly Tartakower, 4° Akiba Rubinstein; 
*1937 Bad Nauheim, Stuttgart, Garmisch: 1° Max Euwe, 2°-3° Efim Bogoljubow, Alexander Alekhine, 4° Friedrich Sämisch, etc.
In that situation, I have just started a new category: List of mini chess tournaments which includes strong quadrangular and triangular tournaments. Mibelz, 19:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should List of strong chess tournaments be limited to tournaments of more than 4 players? I think the two articles should be merged. Also, see my comments at Talk:List of strong chess tournaments. Peter Ballard 02:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the point of limiting list of strong chess tournaments to ones with more than 4 players either. And while the tournaments listed above by Mibelz are noteworthy, some of the other tournaments on that list are less so. A selective merge of the stronger tournaments from list of mini chess tournaments makes sense to me. youngvalter 15:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree on this, the way they do it in the German wikipedia is far better (including the info in the lists). Lets go for it! Voorlandt 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of mini chess tournaments]] 

message: I think we should have some "Chess in xxx" articles, for countries xxx for which we have something encyclopedic to say (which means WP:RS sources).  These would be survey/overview articles.  Unless others think it's a bad idea, I might be able to start a Chess in the United States article this weekend.  (If anyone feels it's a good idea and wants to get started right away, that would be great.)  There is potentially a lot to say for at least some countries.  Some of the references I have (Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess and Sunnucks' Encyclopedia of Chess) have articles on the most prominent chess nations that can be used as skeletons on which we can add more flesh, possibly including
*brief history of chess in the country
*important chess organizations, historically and currently
*description of most notable clubs, overall club structure and any national team chess (team play more important in Europe than the U.S., I think)
*estimates of number of players and number of rated players
*top chess players (world champions and contenders), important theorists and writers, notable chess patrons
*summary of Chess Olympiad participation
*most important chess publications (magazines and newspaper columns, and now web sites too)
*international tournaments and national championship tournaments, important historical tournaments including World Championship matches
*national tournaments that don't warrant a solo article but can be given a brief mention if they are noteworthy (state championships and some other well-established national tourneys)
*other stuff I haven't thought of
These articles would be the main articles for the categories in :Category:Chess by country.  One of the reasons I have for this is purely selfish: if others create good articles of this sort (especially about chess in non-English speaking countries) I will enjoy reading them.  Any thoughts or suggestions? Quale 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess in ''xxx'' 

message: It seems our fellow Wikipedian User:Use the force has started to create one article for each chess subvariation. For example he has already created Abbazia Defense, Australian Gambit, Basque Gambit, Benelux Variation, Berlin Variation, all of them as stub. While some of them may be worth a separate article (maybe the Berlin variation ?), where do you think we should draw the limit (if any) ? As a reminder, we already had some similar discussions in the past that you can find in the chapter "1.6 New Merge Pages" in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/FAQ/Etiquette#Notability. My first reaction would be to allow a separate article only on a subvariation importance enough to have a book dealing only about it. SyG 19:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that.  We've had two editors do thie before - create stubs of a lot of subvariations and/or ECO codes.  It caused a lot of problems and a lot of work for the ones who had to clean it up.  I would say that a stub for a vatiation or sub-variation should not be created.  Only if there is at least enough material for a "start" class article should it have its own article.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the criteria of there being a book about a variation in order to justify an article about it.  That would make it notable.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One article for each variation ? 

message: In the article it says that the championship was discontinued after 1928. It seems to be revamped in 1995. I don't have time nor resources to work on this. However, I posted some partial results (not always very reliable) on the talk page, so hopefully somebody can complete the list and incorporate it into the article. Voorlandt 15:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World Amateur Chess Championship]]