Talk:Chess tournament

Assessment for B-class

Here is my assessment of the article (this version) against the criteria for B-class.

1. "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary."
   No problem on this side.
2. "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies."
   I am uneasy with several statements of the article. For example, let's take a few sentences from the "History" paragraph:

• "This first tournament, known as the London 1851, would set the precedents for the thousands of international chess tournaments that would precede it": Obviously what is meant is "...that would follow it", and not "...that would precede it". Then what precedents are we talking about ? If this is in terms of format (knock-out), most of the tournaments that came after this one had a different format (e.g. round robin), so no precedent was set.
• "Adolf Anderssen of Germany won the London 1851 tournament and thereby unofficially became the first "World's Best Chess Player"." This is just misquoted. The reference says Anderssen became the World's Best Chess Player", but not that it was the first time.
• "The London 1851 tournament not only standardized some of the rules of chess" I am afraid it did not standardise any rule of chess, even if the idea of a "Chess Parliament" was talked about at first.

1. "The article has a defined structure."
   No problem on this side.
2. "The article is reasonably well written."
   No problem on this side.
3. "The article contains supporting materials where appropriate."
   No problem on this side.
4. "The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way."
   No problem on this side.

Also there is no mention of tournaments for computer chess in the sections, although it is mentioned in the Lead.

I think the article is close to B-class but the criterium 2 needs a bit of work. SyG (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Great review SyG. Here are the changes I have made since. I believe I have addressed all the issues including the edition of a small section on computer chess in tournaments. Thanks again, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 23:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have quickly read the article again, and I think you addressed my concerns on criteria 2. So I am raising the article to B-class. SyG (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

early tournaments

The London tournament of 1851 was the first international tournament, but there were others (non-international) before that. Bubba73 (talk), 05:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference for this? I did a quick internet search but I was only able to find information on the London tournament. αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 22:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a tournament in Leeds in 1841, Oxford Companion to Chess. Somewhere I read about one in France in the 1700s, but I don't remember where I saw it or any more details. Bubba73 (talk), 22:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Tournament first used as a chess term", 1841, Leeds, here. Bubba73 (talk), 05:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is someone talking about such matters. Bubba73 (talk), 05:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Under drawn game

Under Drawn game "If a player claims a draw according to the rules of chess, the player must immediately stop both clocks and record the draw claim."

This isn't right. The player isn't required to stop the clocks. Under rule 6.12(b) a player may stop the clock to call the director. But even calling the director may not be necessary if the opponent agrees that it is a draw. And even if you do have to call the director, you are not required to stop the clock. Bubba73 (talk), 15:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I have clarified this ([1]). αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 22:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rules section

First off, a big thank you to the authors of this article. This note is meant to improve the article, not to gut it. :-)

The thing I object to in the article is the rules section which I think focuses too much on the rules of chess in general, and that stuff is already covered in rules of chess making the coverage here much of a duplication. That does not mean that the article cannot support a rules section, because there are rules particular to tournaments.

If we look at the FIDE handbook [2], I feel the "rules" covered in this article is too much on what is called "Laws of Chess", chapter E.I. However, section "C: General Rules and Recommendations for Tournaments" seems to be of more relevance.

I believe this article should refer as much as it can to Rules of chess or other articles to discuss the things like "player conduct", "the drawn game", "the chess clock" and so on. Although most serious chess is indeed tournament chess, these rules are valid for match play as well. However, rules on invitation, eligibility, and drawing of lots are particular to tournaments, and should have more coverage in this article. If anyone wants to summarize the rather dreary rules of chapter C in the FIDE handbook, that would be great. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

first international tournament

Alfonso Ceron mentions an international tournament in the 1500s (only four players from two countries though). Bubba73 (talk), 00:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Player conduct

This section seems suspect. Have amended some parts that seemed incorrect. It could do with some inline references. SunCreator (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

number of players

Does the article need to say something about the number of players? With only two players it is a match rather than a tournament. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 15:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

sections

I think it would be better to (1) put Format section above Rules section, (2) put Time Control section under Rules. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 15:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, the 'rules' section should probably be a bit further down in the article. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chess tournament/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Hi, I'll be reviewing this article; I'm happy to see another chess article up for GAR. At first glance, this article is going to need quite a bit of work. I'll prepare a detailed list of initial comments in the next week; in the meantime, could the editor(s) ensure there is at least one citation for every paragraph, as it will be necessary for GA promotion. More later. Sasata (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, as mentioned, the article needs work. In the past I'd probably just GA fail, but I'll give the editors the benefit of the doubt and drop an initial set of comments to work on. I noticed several typos and MOS problems during reading, but am reluctant to spend much time yet on nit-pick details, knowing that content could (and should) be altered significantly.

Lead

• looks thin, but we'll come back to this after figuring out the rest

History

• it would be really nice to have some more historical information about the early tournaments. Who played? How many played? What format was used in Leeds 1841? How long did the tournaments last? etc.
• what are the drawbacks of the elimination formation alluded to in the text?
• The images are too many and too large. On my browser the second olympiad map overlaps with the second Olympiad picture unless I stretch out the window. Does the pic of Anderssen really helps the reader comprehend the section? Don't forget about WP:access and remember that people on small notebooks and Palms will be reading this article.
• "By the 29th Chess Olympiad in 1990, there were 127 member countries." why not use the 2008 numbers?
• "On September 26, 2008, Swedish Chess Computer Association ranked Deep Rybka 3 as the best chess engine in the world with an Elo rating of 3238.[17]" What does this have to do with the subject "Chess tournament"?

Rules

• This section overall seems disjointed and lacks flow. The opening paragraph is weak and doesn't properly introduce following material. Many of the subsections seem to have unnecessary detail and minutiae that I'm not sure needs to be in what should be a general overview article about chess tournaments. The overall impression reading it is that its a highly watered-down and incomplete version of FIDE rules. No mention of touch-move?
• The arbiter's role could be greatly expanded, and the list of penalties eliminated
• the "Handicap inclusivity" subsection title is awkward, and seems misplaced in the section about tournament format
• Dump the gallery... after the reader's seen one picture of a bunch of people playing chess together in a room, I don't think they need to see more

Missing stuff:

• what is the longest running chess tournament? (Hastings?) Strongest tournament? Largest tournament?
• no discussion of the relatively recent phenomenon of computer-assisted chess cheating and precautions organizers have to take to reduce this... a mention of the glass bubble in that Spanish tournament with Topalov and Carlsen would be appropriate here (and maybe a pic if you can find one)
• what world championships have been decided with tournaments (rather than matches)
• no mention of postal chess tournaments.. how do they differ in format?
• would it be worth mentioning women-only tournaments?
• The citations need some work. It would be best if all were in proper citation templates, barring that, ensure that all have (where possible) author/date/publisher, and access dates if weblinks
• just noticed Philcha's comments at the WP:Chess talk page, and agree with them

I'll let the editors chew on this for a while and come back for a second read later. Sasata (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for such a thorough review. I (and hopefully some others) will get to work on it right away. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem... but actually the review isn't that thorough yet; I give you the detailed nit-pick review when the above comments are addressed :) Sasata (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see there hasn't been much improvement in the past week. I'm going to fail this GA to give editors more time to deal with the suggestions above (and avoid having to wait indefinitely at GAN). Looking forward to seeing the improved version back at GAN sometime! Sasata (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking your time with this review. You've brought up some great points on improving the article, it will just take some time to make the changes. Take care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or does this article not mention at all how many games are played and / or the number of points needed to win a chess championship? I came here to figure out how many games need to be played (or points scored?) for the current tournament before carlsen/anad would be the winner, but i can't find this information, not even on the world chess championship page. I dont even know the basic rules of how to win a tournament :(

Audience conduct

Isn't the audience at a chess tournament supposed to be absolutely silenced during a tournament? Angie Y. (talk)

Section of strongest tournaments

The strongest tournaments to date have included a category XXI section.

Now some tournaments are in XXII section (as Tal Memorial 2012: 2776). Demon Witch (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Number of wins in major recurring chess tournaments

I think the Number of wins in major recurring chess tournaments section should be removed. It's a large, unwieldy table, with the players near the bottom chosen nearly at random but with a very strong bias towards players in the current era. This is inherent in the idea of "major recurring chess tournaments", which apparently excludes the Soviet championship for reasons not clear to me, giving rise to WP:OR concerns about what is considered "major recurring". Nakamura is a very strong player, but he's listed solely for a (very fine) win at Wijk aan Zee, when Portisch has four wins there and doesn't appear in the table. Adding Portisch would not fix the problem because there are other players missing too, such as Short who has two victories there. There are other problems, such as crediting Botvinnik for winning one WC tournament and four matches. He actually won three WC contests and retained the title twice in drawn matches. I think it's arguable whether a drawn match counts as a tournament or match victory. (I think generally the rules call for the prize money to be split equally in a drawn match even though the champion retains the title.) The selective inclusion of players is a WP:OR nightmare and trying to fix it would require making the table quite large, unless perhaps it were limited to the top 10. Quale (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Replying to myself: After consideration I can see a good argument for excluding the Soviet Championship since only Soviet players could compete, although realistically few players in the West could have been successful against players from the USSR during most of those years. Quale (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chess tournament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722025232/http://ilib.mirror1.mccme.ru/djvu/bib-kvant/chess.htm to http://ilib.mirror1.mccme.ru/djvu/bib-kvant/chess.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Tournament categories

So that means that tournament's strength or prestige is determined retroactively.

So as there is not a system in place that would roughly ensure quality/strength of a tournament, a word would be nice to explain how those strong tournaments happen (for example Herceg Novi or that Zurich tournament)? Is it money, by chance, location... What is it? 213.149.61.151 (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Tournament categories 2

FIDE keeps 3 ELO ratings. One for standard, one for blitz and one for rapid chess. The last two are rather new (around 2000). And player's rating for standard chess on average is lower than the other two. So it is important to distinguish between the three/two. There hasn't been a tournament with average ELO rating over 2800, but there has been a tournament with average blitz/rapid ELO rating over 2800. 213.149.61.151 (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)