Talk:World Chess Championship 2023

A news item involving World Chess Championship 2023 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 April 2023.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chess High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've only ever heard "Delayed Exchange Variation" whether it's on my 5 or 6. Delayed and deferred together just sounds dumb, I highly suspect that's a name invented by someone from wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Companion to Chess (1996), pp. 104–05:

DERLD, the 'Delayed Exchange Ruy López Deferred'. The line is also known as the Steenwijk Variation because it was played in that city in the 5th match game between Euwe and H. Kramer, 1940.

--IHTS (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard that one before. I'm pretty sure 99% of players just call it the Delayed Exchange Variation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OCC p.130:

Exchange Variation Double Deferred, DERLD, that is, the Exchange Variation of the Spanish Opening deferred for two moves.

If White defers capture for one move only, its: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Bxc6 (ECO 77). But Hooper & Whyld don't list/name it. --IHTS (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horowitz (Chess Openings: Theory & Practice, p. 127, n. 24), calls 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Bxc6 "The Delayed Exchange Variation without ...f6, which hardly matters." He gives the supplementary variation 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Bxc6 on p. 188, but he doesn't name the line in n. 1, p. 189. --IHTS (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. I think we know the result :( Jishiboka1 (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC) But let's not add it yet. I will start working on a game 2 Jishiboka1 (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By transposition, it amounts to 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.h3, which is certainly the Classical Variation for the first six moves. IIRC this is also implied by calling it D27. But not a big deal. Double sharp (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My POV - we don't have to get hung up on opening names, or define them over-precisely. 1.e4 is not called "The King's Pawn Opening", it's just called 1.e4. And if White throws a weird move like 4.h3 into the mix, it's still a Queen's Gambit Accepted, but I wouldn't want to narrow down the description any more than that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like I said, not a big deal. :) Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes. 29.Rxd4 is such an obvious reply, any decent player would at least look at it even if on further examination they decided not to play it. Nepo admitted that he didn't consider it at all, which is a shocking oversight for a player of his level. Per

I agree. Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ding said he had planned 29.Qd3 before he realized Rxd4 worked, and that line isn't so bad for black, and 29.Qxf4 is good for black. So 28...Nd4 doesn't seem like a very obvious blunder, so I'm not sure if "??" is necessary. 9ninety (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I am spoiled by too many Petrosian exchange sacrifices. :) Anyway, it seems most of the sources are using "?", so we'll probably end up sticking with that. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to end this debate with an agreed consensus, thus I have found several sources that use ?, but say "Blunder".

chess24.com (https://chess24.com/en/read/news/ding-liren-pounces-on-blunder-to-win-game-4) says "After 27...Qh6 Ding spent just 42 seconds on 28.Qf3 and suddenly Ian plunged off a precipice with the move 28...Nd4?, played in under two minutes."

Thus the majority of the sources I have found call it "blunder" but only give a ?. So should we write he blundered with 28...Nd4? Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I don't have consensus for "??". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the concern was re semantics!? (I.e. we call ?? "blunder"; we call ? "mistake".) --IHTS (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text already says that. (Nepomniachtchi was still in the game until he blundered with 28...Nd4?) --IHTS (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the majority of the chess sources say so, let's keep it this way for now. Jishiboka1 (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Commentators stated that 29...Nxf5 was not a poor move on its own, but 30...Qf6 was what lost the advantage..."

That statement doesn't even make sense, Ding never held an advantage. Is there any better wording we can use? 9ninety (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "30...Qf6 was the mistake". Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per game, only one position should be displayed. Any more than that, it actually looks annoying. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KyuuA4, are you using a mobile (annonying because requires scrolling)? Or? --IHTS (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the problem was scrolling on a mobile, try it now. --IHTS (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --IHTS (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cause that's what happened. And it happens to every chess player, or any competitive sportsperson for that matter, at all levels. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly: professional sportspeople succumb to pressure all the time. However it seems to me that characterizing this moment as a "Ding cracking" is not within the realm of our role as encyclopedists. The pure fact of the matter is Ding spent 5 of his 6 minutes on a mistake with many moves to go before he reached the time control. Since commentators note this as a critical moment in the match, if we don't relay this information we're not giving a complete picture of what transpired. On the other hand, unless commentators have talked about this moment using the language of "cracking, choking, having a meltdown," etc. I feel it's not our place to impose that quite critical language onto the game; if they have, we ought to contextualize it as such. Why not "froze?" Giri used this term quit a bit, and it carries a tone that's more descriptive than critical. Winthrop23 (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the commentators were saying it alot, that Ding "froze". (A common phenomenon in stressful situations, as in being temporarily disabled from performing, from "pulling the trigger", etc.) --IHTS (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point is we're not trying to shame Ding, cause anyone who's played chess competitively has had similar horrible experiences. But clearly something went wrong with his psyche in those 5 minutes he let his clock tick down despite his desperate time shortage before playing an inferior move. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; but we should not extract conclusions unless they are trivial. That he had serious time problems after his move 32 is about the most we can conclude without incurring in

WP:OR. Clearly something went wrong with his psyche is too much, and we would need external references to support that conclusion. Gorpik (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

We're allowed to do OR on talk pages. If it's valid then RS's will be found. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I just mean that the current wording is fine for me, unless we find additional sources. Gorpik (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not as a source in itself, but for the information which can possibly be sourced elsewhere. https://twitter.com/olimpiuurcan/status/1648623071530733568 MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts FVitelli and opqrstuv on Lichess appear to be connected to Ding Liren's opening prep. The exact position after 12.h4 in game 8 appeared on the board in one of their games. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC) It's discussed in this Spanish language article: [1] MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC) Also discussed here: [2] MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it loses, but so does 31...Qf8. You can't make a mistake in an already lost position, but you can try to complicate things and bluff your opponent. Chess24 and TWIC both give it "!?". Milan Dinic in his report for the FIDE website gives it both a "!" and a "?" so I count that as half a source. Point is it doesn't deserve a "?" just because it loses, because it was Nepo's best practical chance, engines be damned. I'd even give it a "!". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that move does not lose because, as you mention, Nepo already had a losing position. It is quite clear to me that he tried to confuse Ding and he succeeded, so I dont get the ?. Of course, my opinion is quite irrelevant here, but, given that you have several good references, I think you should go ahead and make that change. Gorpik (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and changed it to "!?" (incidentally, that's what I'd have given it myself, for what it's worth). Double sharp (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(repeating/reword what I said at User talk:MaxBrowne2). I prefer !? too, but I'd like to see it in more sources. Much as I admire TWIC as a news source, the editor is not a titled player, so I don't think we should count it unless he in turn cites a GM. Adpete (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many references to "commentators said", "was considered" etc in the game texts. Tighten it up. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commentators consider that this article has far too many unsupported attributions. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know the position was an important moment but it somehow ended in equality; maybe we should include 34...f5, the fatal blunder, instead; or include 2 positions, like game 6? Unknownwikipedian2023 (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two positions make sense, yes. I think this game had two key moments. Double sharp (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I chose 7 credible sources of annotations (chess.com, ChessBase, chess24, FIDE, lichess, USCF and TWIC) and compiled a list of all their annotation symbols. If 3 or more sources are giving it the same sign, that's the one I assessed as "consensus". If 3 or more sources are giving it some sign, I've tried to go somewhere in the middle. When in doubt, I'll lean towards not excessively criticizing a super-GM, cause who am I to do that? So based on this, the consensus annotations for game 1 are as follows: 7.Re1!?, 8.d4!?, 11...Bg4?!, 14.Nf5?!, 14...Ne6?!, 25...c6?!, 27.Qf4!, 29.Bd6?!, 31.f4?!. Want me to repeat this exercise for the other games?

And please all editors refrain from giving the players "??"s unless that's the clear consensus of the annotators. In particular don't do this for moves that miss a difficult to calculate win, like Ding's 32.Kd1 in the classic game 8, or Nepo's 27...Rag8 in game 12. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be busy tomorrow while they're playing, so probably I won't be in time to input the moves during the tiebreak (although we will see; I might get some of the games, but most likely not all). Just posting this because I put them in for all the classical games. Double sharp (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: I believe you can just copy the PGN via the Lichess broadcast here. It's under "Share & export". I'm currently saving changes across chess articles as soon as one of them become world champion but I'll try to help out here as well. Wretchskull (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: Actually I have been copying PGNs, though from chessgames.com rather than lichess. The issue is rather that I'm going to be out in half an hour. I'll be very happy if you help me with the updating! And I suppose you know that you can get the openings and ECO codes from lichess as well. :) Double sharp (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Unfortunately I realized that copying the PGN from lichess gives a cluttered mess of moves combined with engine eval within brackets after each move, so I'll stick with chessgames.com. Also, I would probably not use lichess for openings because some names are either outdated or named by a minority of authors, although they're still accurate enough. I'm mostly trying to refine the annotations for the games, but most of the sources are in video format by the commentators so it feels like I'm getting into

WP:OR-y territory... Wretchskull (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I arrived back in time for 59.Qc7. T_T Double sharp (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've ran a half-marathon before and I still think I've been sweating more today despite sitting.. some of the craziest games I've seen.. BTW I had a template ready for the In the news story but someone beat me to it :(.Wretchskull (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: By the way, shouldn't we specify the Martinez variation when Nepo played d3 each time he entered the Spanish? Wretchskull (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: Yeah, I agree. Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory section states:

"Ding Liren won £1.1 million ($1.4 million), 60% of the prize total. Nepomniachtchi won £900,000, 40% of the prize total."

But, according to the rules stated later in the article:

"The prize fund is €2 million. It would have been split 60% vs 40% between the winner and the runner-up had either player scored 7½ or more points in the classical portion of the match. As the match was tied after 14 classical games, the prize fund will be split 55% vs 45% in favor of the winner of the tiebreak."

So it appears that whoever included the first quoted passage was not familiar with the rules of the tournament.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c082:2ea0:52e:7e69:ddb8:4a12 (talk • contribs)

€1.1 million/€900k is correct, it's just that that is actually a 55/45 split of €2 million. I don't see anywhere in the article saying that that is a 60/40 split (or using GBP for that matter), so if it did say that before its been fixed. Endwise (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case you did not read what I wrote, I quoted the article at the time I made the above post. 2601:200:C082:2EA0:857:C3F7:63B8:4B20 (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence reads as follows:

"Dylan Loeb McClain of The New York Times ..."

But is he really (in 2023) "of" the New York Times?

The New York Times includes an article about chess perhaps once a year. I doubt that they would have a permanent employee (which is what "of" signifies) for just one article per year.