ChessPlayerLev

From the Help desk

See Wikipedia:Help desk#second AfD - another editor noticed that your AfD nomination of Murray Turnbull was not carried through correctly. The instructions for AfD nominations are here, and are quite fiddly. You might like to enable the Twinkle tool, which makes it much easier to get all the steps right. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore/remove this

Are you by any chance Lev Alburt? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thank you for the compliment, but I am just a lowly expert, not a GM!ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Classic Player Records

Sorry I never got back to you after you posted a question on my talk page all the way back in January. Real life keeps me away from wikpedia a lot, but I do stop in to do some wikignoming edits from time to time and I have been back many times between January and now. I didn't intend to seem to be rude and ignore you.

I don't have any good ideas about career records. I personally am very hesitant to simply report database search results from chessgames.com or chessbase as I don't know any way to verify their accuracy and I think these sorts of database searches can stray into original research territory. My preference is to use published sources such as The Complete Games of Bobby Fischer by Wade and O'Connell, but clearly such sources will be available for only a vanishingly small number of retired players and essentially no active players. The only article I recall working on where career records was a major part is List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess.

On a different note, I want to thank you for examining wikipedia's chess articles with a critical eye. Although I don't always agree with you, I do learn more from people with a different point of view than I do from those with whom I agree completely. Several of your critiques have made me change my mind by making me examine things more closely. Quale (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries about the delay in replying. I often take long hiatuses from Wikipedia myself! And indeed, the more I look at career records, the murkier it gets, even for post-WW2 players. There are many omissions/errors/inconsistencies between databases, but this is equally true of a number of books as well.

I appreciate the kind words, thank you. I hope to improve Wikipedia's chess articles much more in the future, although one difficulty is the inaccuracy of many "reliable sources". Chess history isn't an area with a lot of things written about it to begin with, and of those, few are vetted for the truth in a thorough manner, as Edward Winter is fond of pointing out. One instance, for example, is the claim that Capablanca had a mild stroke during the 1938 AVRO tournament. This just doesn't make any sense for about 5 different reasons (which I won't enumerate unless you're interested) and simply seems like an excuse for a legend who had a poor tournament against the toughest field he faced in his career. However, it was mentioned in a single book, and that's that...

Anywho, I hope to do what I can, and appreciate your excellent contributions as well!

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Submitting Article for Quality Assessment

Thanks for considering me, but I haven't assessed an article in four or more years. We had some discussions about it several years back and it was clear to me that I had very different standards on both importance and quality than other editors in the chess project. Surprisingly (to me, anyway), my views are more generous on both. For example, a huge majority of chess articles are classified as low importance. I expected that importance would follow more of a bell curve, with few Top importance pages (as we have now), a fat middle of Mid importance, and then a smaller tail of Low importance. Instead the importance ratings are extremely bottom heavy, with 2/3 of the pages being judged Low or Bottom importance. Then there are people who argue that a page can't be better than a Stub unless it has an info box and the lede is at least three paragraphs. It's all subjective so I can't say that these views are wrong, they're just not my views, so I decided to leave assessment to a larger group of editors who were in more general agreement with each other. I've tried to not let myself get too wrapped up in the inevitable disagreements on wikipedia that really aren't very important, although I'm not always successful. You can see some of the historical discussion in the WP:CHESS talk archives: WT:WikiProject Chess/Archive_10#Assessing articles, call to the wikiproject chess community and the following section.

So, my suggestions are to add a topic at WT:CHESS asking for a reassessment and/or try the user talk pages of other members of the chess project. User:SyG may have assessed more chess articles than anyone else although probably not many in recent years, and User:SunCreator may be another good editor to ask as they are definitely still active in the chess project. User:Bubba73 and User:Voorlandt are excellent, as are User:Sjakkalle and User:Brittle heaven although I don't know if the latter two do many chess article assessments. All of them have been in the chess project for years.

Overall activity in the chess project seems down a little recently, although it's cyclical and I think the fact that it's summer in the northern hemisphere keeps editors otherwise occupied. It's good to have you adding some life to the project. Quale (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Steinitz as an American in 1895

You might want to slow down a little. Steinitz was considered an American chess player in 1895 (and earlier in fact). See page xii of the tournament book, digitized by Google: The Hastings 1895 Chess Tournament. In fact there are a few other nationalities that should be corrected in the crosstable in the article. Quale (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm aware that Steinitz was considered "American" in a few places, but not that this extended to the actual tournament book. The edit from "William" to "Wilhelm" was an easy one, but I was quite confused when it came to the flags. Are they supposed to represent the nationality of the player (in which case, Steinitz is obviously Austrian), or the country they were "representing" at the time? Anyways, feel free to start a topic on the Talk page about it. I will definitely take a look at your link, but feel free to post any other interesting things you manage to find there. For instance, what other nationalities should be corrected? Great to have you coming up with these resources, by the way. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Ihardlythinkso

It appears that User:Ihardlythinkso is a not-so-civil Wikipedian who likes to use WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT as a valid argument, meaning that he gives himself the right to make Wikipedia go by what he likes and he doesn't care if others like or dislike it. Neither of us even thought about this possible statement until recently. Georgia guy (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I'm well aware of who IHS, and we have had numerous personal conflicts in the past. (One led to him being blocked from here for a month) In fact, in the past, he deleted something that I wrote on his Talk Page simply because he disliked it. No other reason. That doesn't change the fact that he was well within his right to do so. If you don't believe me, ask an admin. Wikipedia users are free to do whatever they want with their Talk pages. (And frankly, that's not always a bad thing) This also doesn't have anything to do with whether he is right or wrong on a given issue. He has a decent knowledge of chess, and can be very meticulous in his investigations. There was at least one instance where he was correct on a chess subject and I was wrong. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

But how correct is the following statement:

Chess is just one of many subjects a sentence in the English language can be about. Georgia guy (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So is math. And physics. And table tennis. What's your point? You asked whether there was a naming convention in chess to use masculine personal pronouns, and I told you that there was. So did the other chess editors. Making the main rule of suicide chess necessarily more confusing and convoluted is a bad idea already, even if it didn't involve using unusual nomenclature. No one involved in chess really cares or gives a second thought to the personal pronoun used; it's just the standard. If you would like to change this, you need to convince chess publishers and the chess world at large to change their ways, not me. WikiChess, like WikiMath or anything else, will be a reflection of the standards used by the world at large in discussing the subject. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for stepping in as strongly as you did, re Antichess "he". (Because, without that kind of support, I had already folded and given up, and the gender-neutral crowd would have successfully forced their way. [And does anyone really think it would only be that article ever, in the future? I don't.]) In spite of our sparks in the past, I know we both agree, it isn't about you or me or personal likes or dislikes, but just to remain true to chess within WP articles. Thanks again for stepping in, how & when you did. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Certainly, my main goal is to improve chess-related articles, and I have always considered your knowledge of the subject to be high. There are also few things I like less than Wikipedia activists, especially when they decide to stick their noses into subject they obviously don't care and know nothing about. I appreciate your own passion and interest in the game. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing too. (That, we each have passion for the game. Where passion exists, sparks can fly - that's normal. And even for the gender-neutral crew too, I think passion is always a good thing. But for their case, I think their passion has blinded them to making objective, fair, and logical application of their passion re gender-neutral, forcing a square peg in round hole. [Even at the end, JBL has alluded to the possibility and prospective work involved, to "make official" for WP the extermination of "he" in the form of zero-tolerance -- "I don't think making an official decision to go entirely gender-neutral would entail very much work". Can you believe it!? If that isn't an extremist POV, then I don't know what one is.]) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

WP Chess in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Chess for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Chess Championship

Hi, I haven't talked to you in a while but you have always provided impeccable scholarship in chess articles. (Every time you have pointed out a factual issue even when it has been supported by sources, it has turned out that you were correct and the English-language sources were wrong.) I've made a plea at WT:CHESS#Azerbaijani Chess Championship for help completing the years missing in the article, and I wonder if you might be able to assist. Thanks. Quale (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind words. I confess to knowing little about the Azerbaijani championships off-hand, but will certainly see what I can uncover. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please take part in a new discussion

Hi :-) I started a new discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews page I thought you might want to take part in. It's called:

"Which 2 people should be in the collage - Botvinnik, Gershwin, Bernstein, Von Neumann" ([1]).

Hopefully after that discussion it will be totally clear what the consensus is and what people want! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please quit it with the personal attacks. If you're still angry at me for reverting your POV pushing at rape statistics over a year ago, which as far as I can tell is the only time we've interacted, then take it up with an admin or work it out in therapy, rather than flinging about baseless accusations in an attempt to derail an ongoing administrative process. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You're making an awful lot of baseless assumptions, and they're practically all wrong. I'm not angry at you now nor have I ever been. I don't care about our one interaction, either. My feelings about your behavior come solely from the ANI complaint you supported against Arzel. Furthermore, giving my feedback in an ANI complaint based on the presented evidence is not a "personal attack". That's absurd. By that definition, you have made dozens of "personal attacks", (like what you wrote about Arzel) but unlike me, do so purely on ideological grounds.

I will continue to call you out for Wiki-lawyering and using the ANI as a means to shut up dissenting opinions so long as you continue doing it. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Honoured Masters of Sport of the USSR in chess

Can you assist at List of Honoured Masters of Sport of the USSR in chess? It's a new article and the author is looking for additional sources. You are the most able chess editor I know concerning Soviet and Russian chess. See the talk page for some discussion. Thanks. Quale (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Chessmetrics

I reverted your deletion at Mir Sultan Khan. I know you dislike chessmetrics, but I don't think it's correct to state that there is consensus that the ratings are invalid, and there is certainly no proof that that is the case. Chessmetrics ratings can't be compared to Elo ratings, and the pernicious claims that a chessmetrics rating of 2600+ indicate grandmaster strength were erroneous. Fortunately you helped eliminate most or all of those. I think it's a reasonable claim that chessmetrics ratings are an indication of playing strength when compared to other chessmetrics numbers, as a world rank. Absolute chessmetrics ratings are nearly meaningless, but really the same can be said of Elo ratings. They can really only be evaluated when comparing other players of the same era using the same rating system. It is not claimed that it is the one true way, so really it's just a single mechanical opinion that is sourced to the algorithm and the statistician who developed it. That's exactly what was done in the article, so I restored the text. Quale (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "disliking" or liking anything. There was a very long, detailed discussion in the Chess Project about whether to use Chessmetrics or not, and it was decided that it would no longer be used. Not just in instances where it was used to make foolish claims about the GM title. I then deleted Chessmetrics ratings from a wide range of articles. If you feel that Chessmetrics DOES have a place in Chess articles, feel free to discuss it in the relevant portion of the project, and I will be more than happy to respond. I have reverted your revert for now. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please post a link to the discussion in which it was decided that chessmetrics would not be used. I follow discussion on chess pages reasonably closely, and I'm pretty sure that never happened. I'm sure you think it did, but I'm pretty certain it did not. I have participated in several discussions of chessmetrics, and the site-wide ban you claim was never agreed to in any of them. Quale (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, who do you suppose wrote "Look, I don't have a problem with keeping Chessmetrics as a reference or short note in the biography of pre-WW1 chess players." I think it could be the same person who now claims "it was decided they would no longer be used".[2]. Decided by you, apparently. Quale (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that link, Quale. Re-read everyone's responses. However, what I dislike most is when Chessmetrics is used for exactly what you described in your first comment; ranking players against one another. In 1914, World Champion Emmanuel Lasker was ranked 12th in the world by Chessmetrics before the St. Petersburgh tournament. How foolish would it be to include that in an article about Lasker? On the flipside, it also overrates a great many players who were active for a period of time. I believe Isidor Gunsberg was actually ranked 1st in the world by Chessmetrics at one point (circa 1889, off the top of my head), and he did so without even winning first place in any tournament he entered!

It's a system that rewards playing activity/punishes inactivity in an era where tournaments were excessively rare. With regards to the page on Mir Sultan Khan, listing it is confusing and inaccurate. He was unquestionably a very strong player, at least top 20, possibly top 15, maybe even top 10, and had a strong case for a retroactive GM title. But all of this is indicated by his excellent match and tournament results on the page, as well as his very high historical Elo rating. (Which should never, ever be compared to Chessmetrics, being an excellent, useful rating system adopted by many games and sports besides chess) He was never the 6th best player in the world, though. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ChessPlayerLev. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ChessPlayerLev. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)