User talk:Quale: Difference between revisions

Another opening on vfd

Hi, If you are intersted in vfd-debates on chess openings, I have submitted another "opening" to the vfd debate. This time it was the Napoleon Gambit.

Also on the chess openings article, you are quite right that 1.e4 e5 2.c3 was not the Ponziani. It was called the "Lopez Opening", and it is now corrected.

Sjakkalle 12:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. I looked at the Napoleon Gambit and the article is pretty messed up. I didn't know that it is a variation of the Scotch, but I agree with you that it should be a redirect to Scotch Game. I have a monograph (not current) on the Scotch, but naturally I misplaced it in the last week or so. I should be able to track it down in an hour (or a day) and when I find it I'll take a look and vote on vfd probably for redirect. Quale

Frederick R July 5, 2005 10:17 a.m. (sorry, don't know how to do the timestamp thing) Your reference to the "Napoleon Gambit" as an "opening" is warranted. In over 30 years as a serious student of the game, I had never heard of this "opening." Nor, incidentally, is it logical for either side. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 Nxd4? 4.Nxd4 exd4, simply 5.Qxd4 gives White a big plus, so there is no need to play the gambit (5.Bc4). Since 5.Qxd4 is so strong, no good player would ever dream of playing 3...Nxd4. I am sure a database search would confirm that 3...Nxd4 is only seen from also-rans at the Girls under-12 championships and such. A little-known (at best) line that constitutes an inferior response to a weak move that is never played by good players hardly deserves to be recognized as an "opening."

Possible Pattern for Chess Opening Articles

Due to the fine work of Sjakkalle, Neilc, and others, the chess opening page and the individual openings pages are really getting a lot better. The individual opening pages still vary greatly in quality, but we can improve the weak ones.

An example of one that I think is really good is French Defence, and it would be great to have articles that good for all the major openings. Camembert did a great job with it. It's structured like this:

1. Moves that comprise the opening
2. History, including how it was named and well-known players who have adopted it
3. Typical pawn structures and strategic themes
4. Discussion of important variations
5. List of ECO codes, including all the variations

I would move the list of variations earlier in the article, maybe make it #3 or #4. One thing this would help address is urge to create hundreds or thousands of articles on insignificant fringe variations as these could simply redirect to the article on the main opening. --Quale 05:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adding the Larsen-Spassky game?

If we add the Larsen-Spassky game it should probably be under the Boris Spassky article. In general I am a bit sceptical to adding a lot chess games to the encyclopedia since people interested in seeing them will probably use another website (such as ChessBase's online database or www.chessgames.com, rather than Wikipedia. An external link is probably a better option, if you take a look at the Spassky article you can see a link to www.chessgames.com which has that game and allows users to play through it on screen.

Some games are of course notable enough to receive their own article such as the Immortal Game, I myself made (a rather poor) one on the 19-move demolition of Kasparov by Deep Blue in 1997.

At any rate, Thank you for your excellent work on the chess openings articles.

Sjakkalle 13:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that too many games would be improper. I have a fondness for miniatures, but it probably is best to use external links for most game scores. The external sites can offer the nice java players and annotations that we aren't really competent to do.

On a somewhat different note, I'd like to add pages for the well known opening traps, basically the named ones like the Tarrasch Trap, Noah's Ark, etc. There are only a handful of these that are noteworthy enough to deserve articles. Quale 19:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge wars

You could always nominate it for deletion, again. The article hasn't been expanded since the last time it was nominated. --Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. I considered it, but my initial feeling is that I should give it more time. Political science isn't my field so it's certainly possible that "knowledge wars" is actually an established term, although I'm very skeptical about that. What will actually happen is that I will forget about it. My guess is that even if it went through another VfD, inclusionists would vote to keep anyway. Quale 16:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Sharyn Clough VFD

Hey, Quale... I've rewritten the article on Sharyn_clough, and I'm wondering if you'd consider taking a look at the rewrite and reconsidering your vote for deletion. Best wishes, --Jacobw 15:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Pay less books

I hope you didn't take my comments seriously. My sarcasm was aimed at those who think that all schools are automatically notable even though the articles say nothing. RickK 07:38, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I should have made it clear that I got that. I just wanted to make it clear that I don't think schools are automatically notable either. I'm saying that a lot lately, although I don't think it does much good. Quale 15:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Continuum calculator

Hello Quale, thanks much for discussing the article. Since I am interested to keep the article I have overworked it a bit and I have added an explanation to the vote list. I would be glad if you had another look. Thanks. -- Karsten88 15:23, 21 May 2005 (CEST)

• Thanks for asking me to take another look. The work you did on the article looks nice, but unfortunately I can't change my delete vote for reasons I noted on the VfD page. If the article could show where the original journal publication of the theory was cited in other journal articles or how other researchers have investigated these ideas it would greatly help. Quale 22:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Your contribution to the discussion helped me a great deal to come to the awareness of an appropriate relevance of the topic. I have again overworked the article to point out the low relevance in the field of AI. I hope the reader will now get the correct view of what's important. Thanks again. -- Karsten88 22:27, 22 May 2005 (CEST)

Votes for Deletion

Hi again, Quale!

No worries, I have voted delete on the Blitzkrieg (chess strategy) article. It was no more a chess term than Simon Webb's heffalumps, rabbits and tigers. I have noted that the bar for notability on chess articles has been set very low with the inclusion of Hippopotamus Defence but we don't need articles on non-existent chess terms.

You might want to take a look at the Sam Slocum VfD again, since I think he invented the stapler. Sjakkalle 06:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• I have found out that he actually didn't, but it is no longer one sentence, and it is not a hoax. Sjakkalle 08:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Super work. I changed my vote to keep. Quale 16:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for responding, and for kind words. Sjakkalle 06:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Childlike mentality VfD

I don't want to "campaign" for this article, especially since I think I was actually the first one to throw a stink about it, but I think that through working with User:Cwolfsheep, the article has been sufficiently altered (by which I mean pared away of its POV), to warrant a reconsideration of your vote (and possibly the speedy removal of the VfD tag). Please review the article, as well as the discussion on the VfD page and on Cwolfsheep's user and talk pages in the process. Tomer ^TALK 23:21, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Cambridge springs gambit

Can you take a look at this article? On one hand I recognize this trap in the Queen's Gambit as a very common and notable one, one which has ensnared thousands of players. On the other hand it seems to be terribly misnamed, since this is not the Cambridge Springs, nor does a cheapo constitute a "gambit". Do you know the proper name for this trap? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm stumped trying to come up with a name for this. It is a very common and important trap in the QGD. As you note, isn't the Cambridge Springs, nor is it a gambit, so the current article name isn't appropriate. There is a reference listed, but since I don't have the book I can't readily check it. I'll continue to look because it would be great to keep this as an article if we could find the proper name for it. BTW, thanks for creatign Légal Trap and adding it to Category:Chess traps. It's very nicely done. Obviously there are hundreds of traps but only a dozen or two are notable enough for articles. The biggest problem is finding appropriate names, as with this one. Quale 00:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's the best reference I could find. Apparently it's called the Elephant Trap on www.chessgames.com (see the very bottom of the page for the elephant name). I couldn't find any other references using this name, but they do have a game score featuring the trap: Mayet-Harrwitz, Berlin 1848. I shouldn't have flat out said this isn't the Cambridge Springs Defense, since 4...Nd7 is a preliminary move in the CSD. Of course the defining move is usually considered to be 6...Qa5 and this trap never gets that far. There is another family Cambridge Springs trap after 6...Qa5 7.Bd3? Ne4!, but I don't have a good name for that one either. Quale 03:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I have moved the article to Elephant Trap. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words about my work on chess articles. Frederick R

Parham Attack

Wow. You really went to town on my silly article on the Parham Attack! Very scholarly. I'm impressed! Frederick R 6 July 2005

btw, around 25 years ago Bernard Parham was a player in a tournament in Chicago that I was directing. He was of course playing 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 and such. I asked him if he knew Black's worst response to 2.Qh5. He nominated 2...Qh4?? I pointed out 2...Ke7 3.Qxe5#. I had realized this by analogy to a game in Irving Chernev's Wonders and Curiosities of Chess. Chernev mentioned a game circa 1860 or so that had gone 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5. Now White wanted to play 3.Nc3. Unfortunately, he plopped his bishop on that square instead. Under the custom of the day, having played an illegal move, he had to move his king instead . . . . Frederick R 6 July 2005