Talk:Alexander Alekhine

Discrepancy!

Lisbon or Estoril? The caption and text disagree. DanielCristofani 01:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Blindfold games

He was famous for playing a large number of games blindfolded. 126.210.150.76 22:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation

Ok, this is my first time creating an IPA pronunciation, so let me try on the talk page first... Александр Александрович Алéхин.. well first of all, it's Алёхин, not Алéхин.

(IPA: [alʲɛk'sandr alʲɛk'sandrovʲiʨ a'lʲoxin] ).

That looks good. I'll add it to the article. However, I just referred to the article on Russian phonology to pick the right IPA sounds to mimic the Russian pronunciation of his name, so IPA experts are more than welcome to correct any IPA faux pas. CasualFighter 16:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not Алёхин, but Алéхин. Please consult the russian version [1]. ("произносится через «е», а не через «ё»") If you want to know why Alekhine wanted to be spelled with -ye- and not -yo- take a look here: [2], where Hans Kmoch says "While reading those articles, I remembered that Alekhine used to get angry if his name was pronounced Al-YOH-khin, the way Russians sometimes pronounced it. The correct Russian pronunciation, he said, was Al-YEH-khin, explaining that the name was derived from that of a tree (*alyesha*) that grew abundantly near one of his family's estates. "Al-YOH-khin," he claimed, was a Yiddish distortion of his name, like Trotsky for Troitsky or Feigl for the German Vogel." Miastko 19:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So it is Алéхин! Funny, it turns out I mispronounced it for years. Well, that's the advantage of working on wikipedia - you learn something new every day... It's surprising that he blamed Yiddish speakers for distortions in his name, though. Most Russian speakers (me included) would think that it's derived from the name Алёша. Thank you for correcting me! CasualFighter 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, Alekhine was a known Anti-Semite. Best regards, Miastko

I think it's highly likely that the name was, in fact, Алёхин (from Алёша). The derivation from алéша sounds to me like a fabrication to justify the allegation of "Yiddish distortion" of his name. Алёхин ("Al-YO-khin") is the only Russian pronuncation I've ever heard. Dodiad

"МОЯ ФАМИЛИЯ, БАТЮШКА, АЛЕХИН, А НЕ ОЛЁХИН" - if you know Russian, please take a look at this: [3] Miastko 20:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Controversy

Someone who knows more about this should expand this section. If these papers were published under his name, the presumption is that he wrote them. However, the authors of the section seem to imply a heavy bias that there is a dispute. Did Alekhine deny having written the articles? If so, is there evidence that would suggest that we should believe him -- I imagine there would be, but this should be demonstrated.

"However, there is no record of Alekhine having ever denied the authorship of the articles, even after the War. On the other hand, the very controversy is widely recognized as tainted by post-war political preconceptions, and thus became obsolete." Obsolete? Surely a wrong use of the word. Does anyone object to my removing the phrase 'and thus became obsolete'?

AllenHansen (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Telegram

Some sections of this article look like a telegram more than an encyclopedia article, such as "Approaching the top level". That section just states "<insert date>, [alekhine] won <insert tournament>". Is this considered correct? --Taraborn 10:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think they (summary sentences for section headings) work well for an encyclopedia article. I might try to make some more appropriate headings (and probably a few less - 24 is too much). Peter Ballard 12:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A Matter of Life and Death

The chess book brandished by Marius Goring is named aloud by him, as by Philidor, the 18th century French master.

I don't recall Alekhine's book(s) appearing. I believe those were published in 1948, two years after the film came out.

Bandalore 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A-class

This article is currently being assessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Review, please join the discussion. Voorlandt 07:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the review and the article has failed its test for A-class. Now it is assessed as GA-class. You can find the reasons and hints for improvement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review SyG 10:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see the archived discussion hereunder: SyG (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Review of Alexander Alekhine

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Alexander Alekhine. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

Review by Voorlandt: conclusion was "Oppose"

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)

Review by SyG: conclusion was "Oppose"

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)

Conclusion by SyG: A-class was failed
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)

Retitle "Contributions" to "Assessment"?

I suggest retitling "Contributions" to "Assessment" so that this section can cover: his playing style and peak strength; his writings; possibly the point that his relative weakness in the mid- to late 1930s paved the way for the FIDE World Championship system of the 1950s and 1960s (Candidates' tournament modelled on 1938 AVRO tournament, which was designed to select a challenger for Alekhine); other similar, relevant topics. Philcha (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol abuse

I remember that this article made many references to alcohol abuse as a major cause for his defeat against Euwe, but now I can't find a single appearance of the words "alcohol", "drink" and so. Why was all that removed? Was that just untrue? --Taraborn (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted! It should be discussed. I've added material to Max Euwe that deals with whether alcoholism was a factor in the 1935 match, and I'll adapt it for Alexander Alekhine in a few days if no-one objects or adds more detailed coverage first. Philcha (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Great job on the Max Euwe article Philcha! I was pretty sure that the alcoholism story was just that, a story, but I did not have the references to back it up. Since there were also no references to back the alcoholism, I just removed it. --KarlFrei (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's awesome, thanks :D --Taraborn (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly true that Alekhine gave up drinking (and smoking) for the 1937 match. (e.g. "From Morphy to Fischer" by Israel Horowitz). But it's also true that most commentators don't attribute the 1935 result to Alekhine's alcoholism, at least not directly. (Horowitz notes that in 1937 Alekhine was in better physical and mental shape). Peter Ballard (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"most commentators don't attribute the 1935 result to Alekhine's alcoholism" - but the question / urban myth / whatever needs to be covered in this article, and I hope I've done that concisely but clearly. Re "in 1937 Alekhine was in better physical and mental shape", if you can be more specific and provide a ref, that would be great. Philcha (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Present tournament results as tables?

The main sections of this article present Alekhine's tournament results as short sentences in a long paragraph. I think it would be a lot easier to read the results if they were presented as tables with columns "Date", "Tournament name/ location" (name caters for e.g. the 1938 AVRO travelling circus), "Alekhine's placing", "Notes". The "Notes column" could contain various combinations of, for example: "without losing a game", "X points ahead", "ahead of A, B, and C", "behind Keres and Fine (first equal), ahead of ...". What do you think? Philcha (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I realise tables in the body of the article would be rather long, so we could consider other options. For the sake of completeness I'll list all the main ones I can see at the moment:

1. Leave it as is.
2. Result tables in each chronological section.
3. Result tables at the foot of the article. Each chronological section would simply summarise (e.g. X first places out of Y tournments) and mention most notable results (e.g. great at San Remo 1930 and Bled 1931; poor at Nottingham 1936) and any other relevant points (e.g. the 1938 AVRO travelling circus was hardest on the older players).
4. Result tables in a separate "list" article. Each chronological section would simply summarise and comment (as in previous option). This option would leave more space for other topics, e.g.: Nazism and other "personality" issues; why no re-match with Capablanca; assessment of his play; his writings (articles as well as books); whether Alekhine's post-1935 weakness and failure to hold a re-match with Capablanca contributed to development of post-WW2 FIDE championship system. Philcha (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• My first thought is that option 3 would be best, but it shouldn't limit the ability of the article to include the issues mentioned in option 4. Multiple tables (option 2) don't seem to be a real benefit. A separate article would make sense if the table was too lengthy. I've sometimes considered whether we should have a separate article with a table of Bobby Fischer's tournament and match record. One general issue is that of what to leave out. Players in the 19th or early 20th century generally played a fairly small number of international tournaments in their entire careers. With the explosion of tournaments in the second part of the 20th century, today a career can include hundreds of tournaments—too much to be worth exhaustively detailing here, I think. Just listing all of Anatoly Karpov's tournament wins (>170) would be a chore. Anyway, an early attempt I made at summarizing a modest career in a table can be found at Herman Steiner. Quale (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please, do something. It's absolutely tedious to read those passages. --Taraborn (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done 1909-1914, what do you think of the result? Remember that what I've done is about 1/3 of Alekhine's tournaments before he became world champion. If we go ahead like this, someone will have to check agaisnt Khalifman's "Alexander Alekhine Games 1902-1922 Volume 1" (I used Alekhine's own book; I don't have Khalifman's) for earlier tournaments and for any that aren't in this list.

Does Khalifman present results in the same level of detail? Philcha (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The table is good! However the results should also be removed from the text (currently they're in both). A continuous roll-call of tournament reuslts in the text makes for very boring reading. Only the most important tournaments should be in the text. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it looks great. I changed the table formatting a bit, and made some of the columns narrower to fit better on the screen. (One nice thing about using piped links to shorten names is the balloon text on mouse hover will disambiguate Lasker and Lasker if you wait a moment without requiring clicking on the link.) If I did too much violence to your work, feel free to revert my changes. Quale (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging comments. And thanks, Quale, for reformatting. The one thing I'll change is to put spaces in the scores, as without spaces the / gets lost in e.g. 8½/13

One thing I'm still concerned about is whether Khalifman's more complete sets of results give the same amountof detail about each as Alekhine's. I'd be very grateful if anyone can check this, as I don't have Khalifman's editions of Alekhine's games.

I'm also concerned about the length. I guesstimate that the table at present (1909-1914) covers about 1/8 of A's tournaments. I'd be happy to go ahead if we agree that as a fall-back position we can create a separate "list of" article.Philcha (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll hold off adding further lines to the table until these points resolved, since it's not exactly fun.

When the table is complete for a section of A's career I'll change the text in that section to a summary (high spots, low spots, other comments) as described above. Philcha (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the table to include all of Alekhine's tournament results I had at hand, which is a fairly complete list before 1940 originally published in Chess Review after Alekhine's death. I took the spaces out of the scores accidentally on purpose—the table is much wider than I'd like but I wouldn't have taken them out again if I had remembered that you intentionally restored them. Coming back to the talk page jogged my memory, but too late. You can space the results again if you like. I actually prefer it without the spaces as you expect to find a / in every entry in that column and I don't think they're too hard to pick out, but YMMV. The table still needs results from 1940 on, and possibly also a table for match results. Quale (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Quale, thanks for extending the tournament table! I'm afraid I can't take it any further as I only have A.'s best games up to 1937. I'll edit the text sections to focus on highlights / summaries. Philcha (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I've added refs for games up to & including the 2nd Euwe match. Please add refs for later games :-)

PPS Do you know how sortable tables are implemented? Can anyone create a template that includes custom Javascript? And can a template create the custom CSS used in the table? Philcha (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"WW1" and "Leaves Russia for France"

At present the "WW1" section includes his experiences during / just after the Russian Revolution and 2 notable tournaments - but these are mentioned in 2 sentences at the end of a long paragraph. Some options to deal with this:

1. Re-title the "WW1" section to "WW1 and post-revolutionary Russia". Make the 2 tournaments a separate paragraph. Leave "Leaves Russia for France" as is. I'd still want to re-title "WW1" to "WW1 and post-revolutionary Russia".
2. Re-title "Leaves Russia for France" to "Chess career 1920-1927". Move Moscow and USSR Championship tournaments to a new 1st para in this section.

I think both of these are better than the current arrangement because they make the resumption (successful) of his chess career more visible, and that the choice depends on whether we want to emphasise the chess career or the biographical aspects. Personally I'd prefer option 2, as it's chess that makes Alekhine notable. Any comments or suggestions? Philcha (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Succeeded by

In the World Championship succession box it says Succeeded by "The Interregnum and then Mikhail Botvinnik". This sounds very clumsy and unnecessary to me. I know there was a gap but he wasn't succeeded by an interruption. He was succeeded by Botvinnik, even if it took a couple of years. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. I don't think "Interregnum" can succeed anybody. Looking at Mikhail Botvinnik, however, I see that that article doesn't explain Alekhine's death or how the title came about well at all. It's hard for me to believe that that wasn't better explained there before. Quale (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• I see there's another approach used, which would simply say the title is vacant and why (death in this case). See Template:s-vac. This is part of a rather more complex set of succession box templates than the ones we use now. Quale (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Quale's suggestion to use Template:s-vac - makes it plain there was no champion and still provides and opportunity to link to The Interregnum. Philcha (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

Although I can't think of a better way to format the list of spellings of A.'s surname, I feel it takes up too much space too early, as if it's a wall between mne and the real content. Since this was an almost instinctive reaction, other readers might feel the same way. I suggest a short final para in the intro, e.g. "A.'s surname is spelt quite differently in different languages", with a footnote showing the list of spellings. Philcha (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it may not be appropriate to place it as the first section, as this is only minor information compared to the other sections. However I do not think your suggestion would be completely satisfying, because the Lead must only sum up the other sections, not replace them. What about:

• just moving the "Name" section in last place ?
• put a footnote directly after the first phrase in the Lead ?

SyG (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review

I'll be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some things to fix before it can be promoted:

• In the section directly above this, an editor mentions the odd formatting of his different name spellings. I agree that a footnote might be the best way to go. However, I have to ask...is listing the different spellings of his name entirely necessary? Most names (countries, people names, etc.) are spelled differently in different languages, so what does it add to the article? Another option is to add "Алекса́ндр Алекса́ндрович Але́хин Russian, pronounced [alʲɛkˈsandr̠ alʲɛkˈsandr̠ovʲiʨ aˈlʲɛxin][1]" to the lead (since he is Russian, it makes sense to include the Russian spelling and pronunciation)".  Done

I agree about including the Russian and phonetic spellings. Re the others, there is a genuine problem with the transliteration of Russian and other Slavonic and Baltic names. I've seen Aljechin and Alekhin in books. Other problematic names include Nimzowitsch/Nimzowitch/Nimzovich/Niemtsowitsch and Chigorin/Tchigorin. The text of Nimzowitsch article ignores the problem; the article can be reached via Nimzovich and Nimzowitch but not via Niemtsowitsch. The Chigorin article ignores the othe rspelling and casnnot even be reached via Tchigorin, although Google immediately showed me an [English-language book that spells his name that way http://www.amazon.com/Love-Affair-Tchigorin-E-Santasiere/dp/0875682596]. Is there a general Wikpeidia (English) policy on names that that are translitered differently in various English-language sources? Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I'll definitely look. Nikki311 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Include alternatives: If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph and a list of them in a separate section or footnote to avoid cluttering the lead; see Freyr for an example of this. - Nikki311 02:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, that works perfectly for Alekhine/Aljechin/Alekhin and Chigorin/Tchigorin. Might have to stretch it just a litte for Nimzowitsch/Nimzowitch/Nimzovich/Niemtsowitsch. Many thanks! Philcha (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go, what do you think? Philcha (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine for me, although others could consider the section "Name" is now too short and could just go into a footnote. I have no idea what is best. SyG (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would do it like it is written in the example article Freyr. Put the English and Russian in the lead and everything else in a footnote. Eliminate the name section altogether. Nikki311 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article is pretty long, and I don't think the lead summarizes it completely. The lead needs to be about four full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.

Yes - probably when the other items are resolved. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Full dates (month, date, and year) should be linked. Done

Forgive me for asking but why? Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web. Also, fully linked dates automatically format to a user's preference: linking May 19, 2008 could format as May 19, 2008 or 19 May, 2008 depending on how the user sets it up. Nikki311 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The first 2 points don't convince me, but the third does - I'm a Brit but have spent some time in the USA, so I'm rather aware of differences in date fomrat - thanks. Philcha (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but I've just noticed that Voorlandt's "oppose" on the Aug 2007 A-class review (above) appears to interpret Wikipedia:Context the opposite way - or have I misunderstood one or both of you? Philcha (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I see a contradiction. Voorlandt's review above states in his fourth bullet point that "per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked", which seems to be exactly what Nikki311 talks about. Could you please explain a bit where you see a contradiction ? SyG (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I think I have understood your concern, as there seems to be a contradiction between the second bullet point and the fourth bullet point in Voorlandt's review. I think there just is a subtle difference between "partial dates" like "2008" or "May" or "18 May" that should not be linked, and "full dates" like "18 May 2008" that should be linked. I will work on that in the article (hoping I am not wrong!). SyG (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have fixed the ones I have found, please tell if I forgot some or if my interpretation of this rule is incorrect. SyG (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. SyG, you are correct. Nikki311 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Alekhine was first introduced to chess by his mother, an older brother Alexei, and an older sister Varvara (Barbara)." - source?

Reliable source might be the problem, rumours and urban myths cluster round formative years of many notable people. I'd delete if not easily resolved. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Found a ref for this, don't know how reliable. Much of the stuff on the web is Wikipedia clones (often old) and summaries. Can anyone with a decent book help in this? (e.g. Khalifman). Philcha (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the lead is full of WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK terms. He is the greatest according to who?

Dunno. Not "Warriors of the Mind" or Chessmetrics. It should be removed. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A few months I suggested retitling "Contributions" to "Assessment" (above) - see Wilhelm Steinitz and Mikhail Botvinnik for examples. I know it's rather late in the game to consider doing this for Alekhine, but it would make it easy to include various assessments of his ranking among world champs, e.g "Warriors of the Mind", Chessmetric, plus Elo if I can find a source. It would be hard to avoid a "personality" sub-section, since that's a controversial point. But I can find some material not already covered under marriages, alcoholism and anti-Semitism. I reckon I can produce an "Assessment" section at about a day's notince. What do you think? Philcha (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the problem with having WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK terms in the Lead, as long as these statements are also found in the other sections of the article where they are suitably referenced. Could you explain a bit further ? SyG (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with an assessment section, as long as everything is sourced and not POV. When you say that someone is the best at something, you really should have a source to back it up where someone prominent in the field says it. Nikki311 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Does ref 4 cover all the info in the World War I and post-revolutionary Russia section? If not, that section needs some more citations.  Done

Ref 4 is meant to cover all of that confused period. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought so, but I just wanted to make sure. Nikki311 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• "When conditions in Russia became more settled Alekhine proved he was still Russia's best player." - peacock  Done

I don't think it's peacock (unlike the item in the intro), as there's evidence - he won 2 tournaments out of 2, one of which was retrospectively declared the first USSR Championship. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have rephrased the paragraph in order to put it in a more neutral and factual way. SyG (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Between dates, use the "–" instead of the "-" per MOS:DATE.

• There are several paragraphs in World Chess Champion, first reign (1927-35) that need references.

Agreed. I think the 2 main ones are: not having a re-match with Capa, which will need a bit of research as IIRC there are conflicting accounts; A's playing record, which summarises the tables below, and the same refs will do. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on this and have added some. I'll report progress on "World Chess Champion, first reign (1927-35)" here as I work through it:

Outstanding items:

• I doubt the statement about honorary colonel in Mexican army - see The 1998 Chess Cafe Holiday Quiz (one of whose authors is the chess historian Taylor Kingston).
• Ref for "only seven out of 238 games in tournament play"
• Ref for world record blindfold simul. Fine's Great Chess Games confirms all except score. Philcha (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Might flow better if paras reordered, e.g.: tournament record; then no Capa rematch; Bogo matches 1 & 2; world tour / simuls; move 4th marriage to bottom of section. What do you think?
• ref for Bog match 2 (1934).
• Should we just give the tournament highlights, notably the runaway wins at San Remo & Bled and (sign of decline) 2= at Hastings 1933/34? This is what we did for pre-1927 chess career, leaving the details to the tables. (See earlier Talk post "Present tournament results as tables?"). This was on my to-do list, but the GA review caught me by surprise.
• Ref(s) for Chess Olympiads.

Philcha (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article could use a really good copy edit.

Could you please be more specific? Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is mostly comma problems. If everything else gets sorted out, then I have no problem fixing those myself. Nikki311 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You want to add them or remove some? Might be a dialect issue; I've noticed many Wikipedia editors use commas to an extent that I was taught (in Scotland) to regard as excessive :-) Philcha (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The fourth paragraph in Contributions and legacy needs refs.

Yes Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The last paragraph in Contributions and legacy needs some refs. Also, it is a bit confusing (maybe because I know nothing about chess?)

It does.

Don't take this personally, but why are you reviewing the article if you know nothing about chess? I don't think it has actually made a difference in this particular case, but that's just luck. To put it another way, I don't think it was fair to put you in a potentially tricky position. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't take that personally. It is just an unfortunate part of the GA Review process. It is good, though, as articles are supposed to be accessible to all readers, so someone who is familiar with all-things chess may not know that it is hard to understand for someone else. Nikki311 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate "supposed to be accessible to all readers", in fact I've been on that side of a few debates about presentation and / or assumed prior knowledge (Cambrian explosion is a real tough one). Perhaps reviews shoud be done by pairs, one with and one without prior knowledge. Philcha (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-read the para and think it's perfectly clear for a player but I don't see how to explain it to a non-player without a complete article on the rules. The best I can do is wikilink five queens. Any ideas, anyone? Philcha (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"but a recently discovered photo from that game in progress shows a position which could never have occurred in the game quoted by Alekhine against that opponent from the tournament." - this is the part I find confusing. So Alekhine said the game went one way, but the photo showed that it could not have possibly happened? I think the wording is just awkward. Nikki311 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Quite a few of the references need to be formatted with Template:cite web.

Then the next thing is someone will grumble about accessdates being missing. Is there a bot for accessdate? Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Accessdates taken care of, for the most part. A bunch of the cite webs repeat the url for the title. Gimmetrow 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I hope the pages all actually have titles. Philcha (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Misc notes:

• Nicholas II did not invent "GM", as suggested in the Aug 2007 A-class review - see Grandmaster (chess) Philcha (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The article will be placed on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. After the hold is up, I will reassess the article and decide whether to pass or fail it. If the editors of this article have no intention of fixing these problems within the seven days (or don't have time) I would appreciate it if they could let me know, so I can move on to other articles. Thanks! Good luck! Nikki311 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)