User talk:MaxBrowne2

Hi MaxBrowne2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

So I get reported for reverting your edits but the same does not affect you... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to be protective when people repeatedly try to insert trivial poorly sourced crap into one of the most important and best-sourced chess articles on wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mind showing me when and where this "consensus" was established? Use the article talk page where I opened a discussion. Quis separabit? 22:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching the archives. There have been many long and tedious discussions. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was incorrect. Depending on how you define it, Fischer could be considered Jewish, though he himself disowned it. We have a consensus around the current wording, and edit warring doesn't do any good. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but the fact that he did not consider himself jewish trumps any sort of “definition” including the orthodox jewish definition! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to try to argue that case on the article talk page. Current wording seems fair and neutral however. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current wording implies he is jewish. How on earth is that “”neutral””!?!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try the talk page. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak response but I will use the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaxBrowne2, and thanks for your interest in the article Photopia. I refer to both the plot you've added and the edit summary you used here: [1], where you say "not too many spoilers here I hope".

The problem with the plot you have added, and why I have added the 'more plot' tag to the section, is that you don't have enough spoilers. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia that is supposed to inform the reader of the entire plot, from beginning to end. Thus, it must contain as many 'spoilers' as possible. It should not contain teasers, like the kind that are typically found on the back of DVD and book covers. Your plot ends with "The narratives are gradually woven together, revealing a tragedy". This is not OK; you can't tell the reader there is a tragedy and then not explain what it is. Please read

Since you can't be arsed fixing it yourself, I have removed the entire paragraph. Well done, you've put me off ever editing that article again. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't fix it myself without playing the entire game again. The tag is supposed to be a friendly way of letting someone who is more knowledgeable about the subject know that the article needs improving. But if that's your attitude to editing Wikipedia I'm glad you won't be editing the article again. Feel free to leave me another hateful message here. I'm taking your talk page off my watchlist as you clearly aren't interested in helping improve the situation.

talk) 11:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I can live with "weak players." Or "inexperienced" or whatever. I just didn't want to simplify the original wording without justification. I won't complain if you change it. It might be good to get some data as to just for what class of player (USCF or FIDE, technically speaking) the white/black distinction begins to manifest itself. It'll probably be something like "Class C and below", as they don't use descriptive labels any more ... I think. Beyond that, we're just speculating. WHPratt (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Class C" etc is not a terminology used outside of the USA so this should be avoided per

WP:WORLDVIEW. If more specific data on when the advantage of the first move becomes more important is available then by all means cite it, probably in the body rather than the lead. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I notice that you confirmed his birthplace via his daughter and I wonder if she would be able to confirm that he had been a student of Torre. I think chessically a fairly important question. I definitely remember him mentioning the name and I would guess they at least knew each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.99.86 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically a tweet from a relative isn't a reliable source, although in this case it adds weight to the info that he was born in Chicago (some sources like imdb incorrectly say that he was born in Cuernavaca). Not sure how you'd go about sourcing any connections to Carlos Torre Repetto, unless someone decides to publish a biography or something. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K+B+B vs K draws

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Draw with light-square bishop on b3-g8 diagonal and White king on c3, d2 or d1

The positions in which K+B+B vs K can't checkmate are obscure, and I wasn't aware of them until someone showed an example on an article talk page. Unfortunately I don't recall which page it was and I can't find it now, but several positions similar to this are draws even with White to move. Quale (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in this specific position white's previous move must have been a blunder... maybe not if you put the light squared bishop on e6 where it might have just made a recapture. Maybe there is an endgame study with this theme which we could cite, similar to what was done for the K + B + N v K ending? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K+B+B vs K draws

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Way this position could occur

I have in mind something like this, if 1.g8Q Rxg8 2.Bxg8 Kb1 Black draws. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Batsford Chess Endings doesn't give an example of a position where K+2B can't checkmate - it just says that 99.97% can checkmate. But it must be positions like above. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my "composition" doesn't work either since White can win by 1.Kd3 instead of 1.g8=Q, or 1.g8=Q Rxg8 2.Bb2+ instead of 2.Bxg8??, though that would be an easy blunder to make if you were unfamiliar with the position. I have Muller/Lamprecht and it makes no mention of these positions. Are there any endgame books that do, or would posting an example position on wikipedia constitute original research? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have practically every endgame book written in English, but I don't know if one has such a position. I've sort of been out of it for a few years. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't been able to construct any positions where Black is able to force a draw based on this pattern, as far as I can see it can only happen if White blunders. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They probably got that 99.97% figure by taking all K+2B vs. K positions, with White to move. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K+B+B vs K draws

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Way this position could occur

• OK this is my refined "study", White to play and win. Point is White must move the king and e6?? is a blunder. Well this was fun
  original research but until it is published we can't include it on wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • I think that it is OK if a blunder is required to get to the position with K+2B vs. K. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Max. I am currently working on the article about the 43rd Chess Olympiad and will make it soon reach the quality standard of the previous one. This time, I was heavily loaded with other stuff and was not able to prepare it a bit earlier. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Gregorio Chil y Naranjo.

A New Page Patroller Boleyn just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

Please

WP:INLINECITE

sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaxBrowne2. 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

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)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muzio Gambit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim Harding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about the ending of three rooks v two rooks which I did indeed lose in a European Team Championship Qualifier against Gilles Andruet of France, when playing for Wales. I don't think I have the score now, as I have not played chess since 1989. Thank you for putting up a page about me on Wikipedia. I corrected the wrong place of birth, and the missing British Championship win. I had added one or two other items, but removed them based on the conflict of interest issue which you mentioned!

I recall that if Gilles had promoted to a queen, I would have had a stalemate defence, so he had to promote to a rook and this won relatively easily. Sorry if this is not the right area to reply, but I could not see any other area.

Paullamford (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any objection to correcting simple matters of fact under COI guidelines, there's only an issue if you try to turn the article into a promo piece. The Wales vs France event was mentioned on the olimpbase site as taking place in Paris in 1982. However, I've looked in all the online databases and couldn't find your game against Andruet, and a search of google books turned up nothing either. I'm surprised it didn't get more attention at the time, you were both master level players and the event was not a trivial one, but until we find the game in some publication this curious piece of chess history can't go on wikipedia. Europe-Echecs has not been digitized as far as I know but if the game is available anywhere, that's probably the best bet. Another possibility is Tim Krabbe, who collects oddities like this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I came across the article and the supposed IP user who is a relative, but I noticed your response to the IP's talk page. Just wanted to say how deeply impressed I am by your approach and your way of communicating with the IP (whether he is a relative or not withstanding). Pity it made legal threats though. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was just trying to get him on board and discussing things on the article talk page, failed miserably. I didn't really want him to be blocked but the article needed to be protected and legal threats, however flimsy the rationale, usually lead to that result. User:Drmies made a couple of deletions to the article, I suspect more to appease him than for any particular policy reasons. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do much appeasing. I take the BLP very seriously, in letter and in spirit. In this case, I saw no reason whatsoever to keep the information (name, occupation) in the article--it has no bearing on the events whatsoever (and we shouldn't be writing like we're the tabloid press). The second paragraph had no encyclopedic relevance--it's like the "responses to event X" sections that mar many of our articles, and the sourcing wasn't impressive either. Appeasing him? I thought the job description stuff was silly, but it's possible he was right. In such a case, if the information is disputed and the relevance slight, removing it is a good option. BTW I agree with what the editor above said about your response. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually question whether it should be treated primarily as a biography at all, rather than an article about a crime. The infobox with a pic taken from her facebook doesn't seem to be in the best of taste to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC) OK you don't like the "person x said 'blah'" type things in articles on current events. The editor in this case (i.e. me) decided to cite the actual source of the statement (the NZ Police) rather than one of the multiple reliable media outlets that reported it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at History of chess, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits with which you disagree is not disruptive, it's part of the normal process of arriving at a consensus. Please see

WP:BRD. And please don't template me, I'm not some newbie. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The content you removed is reliably sourced and is also used in the other article, where it is equally relevant. Your action was unwarranted and you should have sought discussion first if you think the source is unreliable. The Roman connection is by no means certain but it does deserve a passing comment which is all this is. No Great Shaker (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit gave the tenuous connection to a an ancient game with unknown rules undue emphasis. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing undue about it. It is a potential precursor and should be mentioned as such with the proviso that it is reliable sourced, which it is. Your second reversion is inviting an edit war and I will seek a sysop ruling on the matter. No Great Shaker (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it. The chess article is of major cultural importance and much watched. You won't be able to insert fringe theories into it without them being challenged. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at

Stop templating me. Go to ANI if you have a problem. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion, in which you may wish to take part. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. v/r - TP 14:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bollocks. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHESS people are more than capable of thinking for themselves. They are welcome to disagree with me and call me a dick, but I'm also allowed to post my own point of view on talk pages. The "canvassing" was motivated by a desire to protect the integrity of the article, and that's what wikipedia is supposed to be about. I make no apologies. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Max's post was seen by any WP:CHESS member as a concern & opinion posted for the purpose of giving info about the existence of the discussion and obtaining participation, not to influence participation, because no persuasion effort would be needed over a highly probable WP:SNOW issue. So how can Max be guilty of canvassing (trying to infuence) when no such motivation existed or could even potentially exist? Editors post not out of a vacuum but out of interest or concern. So short of a template it is nearly impossible to write in complete neutrality, for example even if an editor writes "I have a concern" that can be misconstrued as influence peddling by someone bent on interpreting it that way. Max has been sanctioned here based on "it looked in print like an effort to influence" when that was appearance only, no reality behind it. --IHTS (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just reviewing

WP:TPG, there is nothing there that would be grounds for removing my post form the WP Chess talk page, e.g. libel, legal threats, personal details, copyright, BLP, personal attacks, trolling, vandalism. Canvassing is not among the grounds given. If someone had replied that I should have worded it more neutrally that would have been fine, but it is not OK to remove legitimate discussion from a talk page. Besides there is no guarantee that the people who see the notice are going to agree with me. Chess players are pretty good at thinking for themselves. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Good point. If I had been the other user I'd have added my own opinion & a link to the discussion rather than replace your post. When you reverted an admin it reminded me of the speeding ticket I got for not travelling much over the limit, the officer explained that I'd "passed him"! - OMG I wasn't paying attention to notice any police car. lol --IHTS (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise he was an admin but he was still in the wrong. The TPG clearly states that if there is any objection to text being edited or removed then it should be left alone. A comment to the effect that my notification should have been phrased more neutrally is all that was needed. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing prohibited material such as comments by banned users, libel, legal threats, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, or anti-promotional policies.

I believe you're a native speaker of English or close to it. So you should be aware that if something says "such as", it's unlikely the list is intended to be exhaustive. But in any case, canvassing also technically falls under

WP:NOTSOAPBOX. You are allowed to express your opinions on what should be done in appropriate places. Canvassing people to !vote in a certain way is however forbidden. If you want to get technical, removing canvassing also reasonably falls under "Removing harmful posts". Of course as always our guidelines are also intended to be descriptive not prescriptive. The acceptability of removing canvassing is well established at AN//I etc. If you feel the current guidelines don't sufficiently articulate this, your best bet is to ask for them to be clarified. Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I was not telling anyone to !vote on anything since what is happening at Talk:History of chess is a discussion, not a vote. I was not trying to rig the discussion or game the system in any way. Your suggestion that I lack English language skills is insulting. Now please stay off my talk page. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Max's post was not "canvassing people to !vote in a certain way", that is your projection as to intent, which is faulty. (Max's intent was clearly to get attention from other project members, he added his own opinion which was his own valid opinion, so what?) The fact you're projecting the worst-case and faulty motivation onto him is counter

WP:AGF, so this editor sees your collective heavy-handedness as the repeated "crimes" here IMO. --IHTS (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

What was wrong w/ "Maxbrowne2, your post could appear as

WP:CANVASSING; would you amend it please."? (But no, we gotta go the "cop-puts-foot-on-suspect's-neck-and-rubs-his-skull-into-the-pavement route". No wonder so many editors quit or just hate this place!) --IHTS (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi MaxBrowne. It seems to me your recent marking of my post on Talk:Chess as off topic - though certainly correct - defeats the purpose of my post, as drive-by editors are unlikely to notice my post. Would it be acceptable to restrict the off-topic marking to the contents of my post, leaving the header visible?--Nø (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's a troll, pure and simple.

WP:DENY. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure. But I suppose - perhaps incorrectly - that his post has been restored repeatedly by various editors because it has been removed repeatedly by various editors without a meaningful edit summary. (I'm not referring to the first removals, but the following ones.) The intention of my post (that doesn't include the troll post, only quotes the title) was to stop people from restoring the post again. -- As you didn't really respond to my question, I'll just be bold and edit the talk page.--Nø (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Chess piece into Chess set. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the singular "they" is accepted. It is normally used where people want to avoid "he or she." But in the King's Gambit article, where the pronoun takes the place of the impersonal "White" and "Black" players, I think that "White" and "Black" are often thought of as impersonal; in other words, they are not thought of as "he" or "she," so "it" is appropriate and you don't need a singular "they" because you are not avoiding the problem of "he or she." I know that you can find articles in which "White" and "Black" are replaced by "he" or by "he or she," but it seems to me that they are impersonal enough that they can be thought of as "it," so you don't need to resort to the singular "they." Your thoughts? Holy (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally chess literature has used default "he". Argue all you like that "he" really means "he or she", that other forms of expression are awkward, that it saves paper etc, the fact is default "he" is becoming increasingly unacceptable in modern English. I've seen "they", I've seen "he or she", I've seen default "she", but I've never seen "it". Chess players are not "its". In the chess context, "White" and "Black" (upper case) are placeholders for the player's name. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I argue that "'he' really means 'he or she'"? And "other forms of expression are awkward" is generally an argument used in favor of the singular they (to avoid awkward phrases like "he or she" and "himself or herself"). The entire English Opening article doesn't use a single instance of the singular they (or of the derided "he" or "his") as an antecedent for White or Black, yet it avoids all such problems using normal language and writing that reads well. Holy (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

»Vice World Champion« is an established title across sports: »The title of vice world champion is part of a long list of achievements from the Ukrainian-born Russian player.« [2] The author is a tournament player and worked for New in Chess. If you can find a source that claims it’s not a title, I’d be glad to have a look. FIDE regulations (13.2): Title of Vice World Champion [3]

That's regulations for the 2019 world junior championship. There is no evidence at all that such a title was used in 1886. Such a title is not even mentioned in the FIDE handbook, not that FIDE even existed in 1886. There is some evidence that there was a discussion of a title called "vice world champion" before the aborted 1975 world championship match should the challenger tie the match, but this was rejected as "meaningless and unacceptable". I think there is a misunderstanding here because an informal title called "vice world champion" (Vize-Weltmeister) for an unsuccessful challenger is sometimes used in German language publications; the English word for it is "loser". Needless to say what other sports do with their title system is irrelevant. You are trying to shift the burden of evidence. Please don't edit war, or you will likely be blocked. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t twist your argument on the go. You claimed initially that there was no title »Vice World Champion«. When I provided evidence to the contrary, you deflected to German language and an alleged lack of tradition of said title. I don’t really have to explain to you that in the nascent phase and early history of the world championship there was no »tradition«. Steinitz was the first official World Champion, and Zukertort the first official Vice World Champion.

A FIDE document lists it as an official title. Anything else you claim is irrelevant, as long as you don’t come up with reliable sources for something else instead of your personal opinion—which you haven’t. Please don’t threaten other editors, doesn’t really help your point, either. As you clearly violate

I don't threaten, I warn. And I follow through. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

I read your comment for reverting my action on the "Knight (Chess)" talk page and have a question: Does archiving messages remove them from the mainstream list of questions? I deleted those comments since I want to work on the "Knight" page and those comments seemed like clutter (one of them was a decade-old question with an answer). If they can't be removed from that page and into an archive, then I believe they should be deleted.

(If archiving them from a page removes them from the main talk page, please tell me how to archive messages).

Thanks! Puredication (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never actually done it, but you could read

WP:ARCHIVE. Unless it's a very busy talk page (like, say, Talk:Donald Trump) it's not usually necessary. The alternative of course is just to develop a tolerance for clutter. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Comes down to personal preference in the end, I don't know of any wikipedia policy saying where the history section should be in an article. If you revert I won't make an issue of it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC) By the way this sort of discussion is better on the article talk page where it's more likely to be read than on a personal talk page. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post on its talk page in the future. I probably won't continue making too many edits since I've realized Wikipedia can quickly become a battle of preferences (which isn't anyone's fault since people possess different perspectives). Puredication (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of situation where wikipedia's

Manual of style. So you can throw it open to the talk page and see what other people think. I have no particular investment one way or the other, putting the history section first was just a personal preference. Other wikipedians may be able to explain more articulately than me why it should or shouldn't be first. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I've tried feeding the position to an engine too. Yes it's a probable win after 4...Kg4, but that doesn't make it a "correct" problem. For a problem/endgame study to be correct, the win has to be decisive and intuitively clear to a human who is not using an engine. Clearly the composer's intent was the artistic effect of the zig-zagging bishop and the multiple knight underpromotions resulting after 4...Nf7+. The win after 4...Kg4, if indeed it is a win, has little to no aesthetic value, instructive value or interest, and was clearly not foreseen by the composer. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. This brings the perspective of a problem/endgame study perfectly to the point. For me it is only left to say to express my hope that for 4...Kg4 there might be a nice mate, so this can be established as a study again. And to mention this exceptional comment with interesting links at the end, hoping someone can use it to go further.

talk) 20:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I saw your "there is long standing consensus on wording" revert. I did take a look at the Talk-page of the article before editing. I didn't see anything related to this mentioned. Garo (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are extensive discussions in the talk page archives, but you are welcome to start a new one. And it's Fischer. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Pirc line is mentioned in the Pirc Defence, I added a link. The information how 8... fxe6 was found is opening specific and already covered there. So I suggest removing this information in the threefold article. Dlbbld (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the arguing under "pushing back against the 75 move rule stuff.".

For the argument "That rule really only exists so that the arbiter can intervene in kid's tournaments" I think that's not true.

First, the rule is as valid as the fifty-move-rule, and it is not our task to make an assumption why this rule exists. An encyclopedia should document what is, and this rule exists and is formulated clearly.

Second, besides that is not the point, my observation concerning that this rule is only used in "kid's tournaments" is different. For example, I take the game from PRO League Group Stage in 2019, Firouzja vs Demchenko. They pass 50 moves without capture or pawn move, but both decide to continue play. After exactly 75 moves each without capture or pawn move (126...Kg7, starting with 52.Kf2) the game is ended. So this can be safely assumed to be for the seventy-five-move rule, any other scenario is highly improbable, this being a rapid game. Firoujza at the time of the game was 15 years old, Demchenko 31 years old, both being GM at the time already. This is not a kids tournament, and to refer to Firoujza as a kid, with his age and level, would be inappropriate.

The seventy-five-move rule is as valid as the fifty-move rule and such per my understanding, deserves documentation. To calculate the number of moves without capture and pawn move is not entirely trivial, that is the reason to mention if for the fifty-move-rule. The same reason applies to the seventy-five-move rule. As such per my opinion your "argument" is invalidated and unless you find other arguments, which I am happy to discuss, the edit stands on safe grounds. Dlbbld (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Max. There's no reason to mention the 75-move rule on the

synthesis. FEN was introduced in 1994 so it's absolutely impossible for the half-move clock to have been included in order to accommodate draws under the 75-move rule. (The FEN document specifically mentions the 50-move rule in conjunction with the half-move clock.) I think you have to stop looking for articles to jam mentions of 5-fold repetition and the 75-move rule. They are FIDE rules so Wikipedia should have accurate and up to date explanations of them, but they belong in rules of chess, threefold repetition, fifty-move rule and glossary of chess, and I think nowhere else. You're vastly overstating the importance of these obscure rules with little practical importance. They should be mentioned where they need to be mentioned, but not shoehorned into every article on chess that you can. Quale (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The statement alone "You're vastly overstating the importance of these obscure rules with little practical importance." specially in regard of stating "obscure rules" and "little practical importance" is not argued, or per my understanding arguing on intimidation, and as such of no value to me. Dlbbld (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit comment "pushing back against the 75 move rule stuff. That rule really only exists so that the arbiter can intervene in kid's tournaments" is in my eyes disrespectful to kid's tournaments. It suggests that kid's play 75 moves without capture or pawn move, so the arbiter needs to intervene. I don't share this point of view. Please provide examples for this statement. Dlbbld (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention the "seventy-five move rule" to the average chess player and they'll look at you blankly. It's not well known, it's not part of common chess vernacular and chess did just fine without it for over 500 years. It's simply an extension of the 50 move rule, which is why I edited the chess article to reflect this. I imagine it is very rarely implemented because most arbiters are far too busy to count moves on one of perhaps 50+ games they are supervising. It has little practical significance and no impact on chess theory, and I will continue to resist attempts to introduce it into wikipedia chess articles beyond simple descriptions of the rules. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming, I see your conclusions, but I can't find the solid arguments for it.

I think your argument is biased and not objective. If you would apply the same measurement to for example the fifty-move rule, you would also have to conclude, that this could not be mentioned at the same level as a draw by agreement. Draw by fifty-move rule relatively to draw by agreement is extremely rare, thus not important with your reasoning. My impression is that the two new rules being something new, your reaction is just the instinctive reaction against something new. Also, the reasoning on the chess glossary page is similar. You don't credit these terms to be added to the glossary, where they belong substantially to the list of draw rules. If you applied the same reasoning to the other entries, you would need to throw out maybe fifty per cent of the entries, if I start with letter A. But you selectively only apply the reasoning to these two new entries.

Also, you are making "placative" statement for like only used in "kid's tournament". I have the impression you just picked up that somewhere, and when asked, you are not underlying your statement with arguments, which does not help to proceed.

I will now try to put details together regarding your arguments.

It is not my understanding that the "average chess player" is the measurement for what to include in an encyclopedia and what not. The encyclopedia must contain the facts which make up the whole, and the seventy-five-move rule happens to be such a fact. I can give some credit to the reasoning when looking over the last 500 years, that this rule is there for six years, so by the full timeframe, it's not a lot. However, this is an aspect of the problem only. When you declare this as the only aspect, then you can conclude, that the relevance is in the low relation you mention. But then you make the error of working with wrong assumptions, declaring this aspect as the only aspect. What is, for example, with online chess, with 1.3 Billion rated games in Lichess? There are other aspects, which I have detailed. Online chess has high importance since years, and even if it's not there for long, this gives no reason to omit, for how often it is used. You say "I imagine it is very rarely implemented because most arbiters [...]". But what do you assume for the fifty-move rule? Do you think arbiters can enforce the fifty-move rule in OTB play in Rapid or Blitz? I know one example where one player claimed the fifty-move rule properly in World Blitz Championships the second time, and the arbiter wrongly denied the claim, after maybe 10 minutes analysis!

Simply I could apply the same argument you are using for the seventy-five-move rule (not properly implemented, so push to the side) for the fifty-move rule (not properly implemented, so push to the side). It shows per my point of view, that your arguments are exchangeable, so not solidly underlined with facts. But this does not lead anywhere in the idea of improving Wikipedia articles, which is base of this writing.

For the practical viewpoint, one must also look at the chess software. I am not an expert in any way, but I tried a dozen of chess programs and could not find one which implements the fifty-move rule or threefold repetition rule properly. ChessBase, chess.com and lichess.org automatically draw after the fifty-move rule, so the question if the seventy-five-move rule is implemented cannot be applied, as the game ends prematurely. None of them implements the fifty-move rule, as the draw claim is to be made, not to be enforced. ChessBase and chess.com automatically draw after threefold repetition. So the question for fivefold repetition rule implementation is irrelevant here. Lichess.org offers a draw button if a threefold repetition occurs and automatically draws after fivefold repetition, best I found.

Even for GM's, these rules are extremely difficult to apply in Rapid or Blitz, to claim the draw without advice if this situation arose or not. This is why the fivefold repetition and seventy-five-move rule have additional importance, for they must not be claimed. Even if the player cannot count the moves in Rapid or Blitz, which is for the most, they can get away by this. I never said these two new rules are as important as the fifty-move rule and threefold repetition rule but has their merit on their own.

That is per my perception if one argues that the seventy-five-move rule or fivefold repetition rule are not implemented, one would have to apply the same arguing to the fifty-move rule and threefold repetition rule, but this is not done, making the argument exchangeable. In reality, there is big chaos in the usage of these rules, and no statement can be derived thereof, as said initially, I don't see where this should come from. Dlbbld (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, consider reducing your massive

WP:TLDR, right? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The resume is at the beginning. I have made shorter comments, which you have not responded. For me, this leaves it open if you don't return for the length of the response or otherwise. I have tried to put my arguments carefully, and this resulted in the lengthy text. The lengthy text is the reaction to several rather placative statements from your side. I have tried to work on arguments, but I can't see you entering the discussion, which closes it for me. Dlbbld (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be flippant but your writing style in general is excessively wordy (both in article and talk space) and when I get an "essay" on my talk page it's just overwhelming, I don't even know where to begin to respond. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The necessity of an own section for the Fivefold repetition rule on the Threefold repetition rule page was discussed and agreed. By removing the section you are not conforming with this result. Removing the sections created additionally a linking problem, for example for the chess glossary, fivefold repetition, such links do not work anymore. This is just for your information, in case I find time to revert. Dlbbld (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "discussed and agreed", more like

blugeoned, people are not inclined to enter into discussions when you try to dominate them with walls of text. I'm sure this was not what Quale had in mind when he suggested a section on fivefold repetition. I'm not convinced a separate section for fivefold repetition is necessary, but if there's going to be one it certainly doesn't belong at the end of the article, entirely divorced from the well established threefold repetition rule. Your insistence on the independent significance of this rule, contrary to both common sense and wikipedia consensus, is getting very tiring. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't understand on what basis the previous solution was completely changed to the solution now. The solution now has no source, so it is original research. As I was told,

So the first point is, I subject you put original research on the page, not being allowed per

The previous solution had also no reference, so this was also original research. But the mate tree was written out, so it was easier to verify. And the one being original research does not justify the other. For writing out the mate tree I found the previous solution more objective, even if longer. The solution now does not write the full mate tree. It leaves it out where you deem this appropriate, for being obvious. But this is subjective. For example the first branch "1.Nf6+ Kg7", "If 1...Kh8 2.d8=Q+ mates in a few moves; if 1...Kg6 2.Bh5+ followed by 3.d8=Q, as the bishop now covers the forking square f7." contains the branch "1...Kg6 2.Bh5+ Kf5 3.d8=Q". After 3.d8=Q Stockfish, for example, cannot find a mate below #10, I find it inappropriate to not detail this.

So the second point is that the solution now contains subjective assessments when to leave out the mate tree on when not. How can you justify this approach? Dlbbld (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 cited sources all contain the solution. This could be made clearer in the article by re-citing them, but describing it as "original research" is incorrect. As is usual in endgame studies as opposed to problems, the stipulation is White to play and win (or draw), not to mate in any particular number of moves. In giving a solution to an endgame study, at least a rudimentary knowledge of chess is assumed, and it is neither necessary nor desirable to analyze clearly won branches to mate. The multiple branches listed after 12.Ba4 were completely unnecessary; the mating pattern can be grasped intuitively in terms of the Bd1 threat, and this is far more useful to the reader who wants to play out the solution than a computer-like multi-branch which takes up so much article space and tends to obfuscate rather than clarify. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has no relevance in this context if the cited sources contain the "solution" or not. You cannot expect the user to read the introduction and search for sources of the solution, the sources must be referenced in "The study" section. Further, even if a user has read the introduction, he will not know, that these sources contain the solution, as none of them is designated to contain the solution. The sources underly the statements "only former World Champion Mikhail Tal was able to solve it", "the study was found to be flawed" and "but the flawed version of the study demonstrated by Plaskett and published by van Breukelen remains the best known", for none of these explanations the solution is required. As such your justification doesn't work. A simple mentioning in the introduction that the sources contain the solution and backreferencing the source(s) you are referencing would do it, as such it is incomplete.Dlbbld (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the article was perfect, only that it's better than it was before. The solution as currently described is well within endgame study conventions. You have identified a fault in that the source of the solution is not clear, but instead of fixing it yourself you come to my page for a little intellectual one-upmanship. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did not realize the same user had been edit warring about this same topic since five years ago. That's a crazy level of commitment to something so innocuous. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's an infrequent editor. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asa Hoffmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Max, you reverted my changes, saying "nope, you don't just get to put that in the lead sentence and use amazon as a ref". The book I cited is not Amazon, it is sold on Amazon; it was published by Russell Enterprises, reviewed on chess.com, and is authored by people highly qualified to speak on the subject (a USSR chess champion, a KGB Lt Colonel responsible for overseeing "work" with chess masters, and others). Furthermore, the information is absolutely key to understanding Karpov's status/notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piupao (talk • contribs) 21:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putting "KGB" in the opening sentence is a violation of

WP:NPOV. He is known primarily as a chess player, not as a KGB agent. I haven't read the book and don't know the extent of his involvement with the KGB, but all leading Soviet players had to play ball with the KGB or else they wouldn't be allowed to play, certainly not internationally. If you're going to cite a book, that's ok, a source doesn't have to be available online, but if you do you should give a page number, and preferably a direct quote. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Saw your quick edit on a fairly minor edit I made on Episode 1 of The Queen's Gambit, your comment being, "previous wording is more accurate." No Max, it's not more accurate, as I had just finished the episode. But my guess is that is what you had wrote, so that make it more "accurate" in your eyes. Wikipedia is a collaborative undertaking, but it seems when it comes to any chess-related entries (I've read the other people on your Talk Page), it is not a collaborative undertaking. It's your way or the highway. I will not be "edit-warring" on such an incredibly minor thing. Asc85 (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did it right, and even further explained it further on the talk page, per

WP:BRD. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, I saw that. It seems like everyone was in agreement with your perspective, too. Asc85 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's ever accused me of being a diplomat but if you go in with preconceived notions about someone, it will tend to be self-fulfilling. It's best not to bring personalities into it, which I never did. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this edit to List of female chess players and many other efforts you make to try to keep Wikipedia chess coverage somewhat sane. On the plus side I did laugh out loud to see an Ariana Grande reference on a chess page. I think that referencing attempt does deserve some credit for creativity. Quale (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quale: People keep insisting that we keep this text, that we should "fix" it, but nobody can actually be arsed doing it. The garbage was added recently by a banned sock puppeteer, who by the way reappeared shortly afterwards editing the same range of articles. There is no coherence to this "timeline" stuff, it's just random trivia, often poorly sourced. Disappointed that you restored it complete with Ariana Grande citation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me adding the Ariana Grande bit back is a clear unforced error. I'll take a closer look at it. My initial impression was that more than half the material can be salvaged which in my opinion does not warrant wholesale removal, but maybe I am wrong about that. From a slightly outside perspective the appearance is that a couple chess editors complained about the timeline being in list of female chess players and said it belonged in a different article (and I agree), but when it was put in a different article you removed the entire thing. That has the appearance of moving the goal posts, but it's possible that that isn't a correct judgment. 03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Opening theory.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "Queen's Gambit trauma", and got some substantial-looking articles. If you are still interested in using this word instead of "problems", I think you would be on pretty safe ground. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're dealing here with an editor who thinks it's ok to revert just because he doesn't like edit summaries, and makes spurious edit warring reports. More than one very aggressive editor on that article unfortunately. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Max, I do not agree with this edit of yours: [7] You wrote: "No, it is absolutely *not* part of the rules of the game. It is perfectly possible to play a game of chess without knowing any notation system as millions of players do every day." But the same is true about the time control. Why do you think that the time control is a part of rules and the notation is not? And current FIDE Laws of Chess do include both. Have a nice day,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the notion that FIDE dictates how chess games are played or recorded (or not recorded). A case could be made for moving time controls outside of the rules of chess since informal games usually don't include time controls. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consult please Fide laws of Chess, the official rules of the game. Article 8.1.1 says: "In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition." It is not a dictate, of course, but you cannot play in an official tournament without using the algebraic notation as described there.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most chess games are informal and played without time controls or scoresheets. Most casual players have never even heard of algebraic notation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. But as I said: then remove also the chess clock and the en passant rule and the fifty move rule from the article. Because during casual games, these things are often ignored as well. You can be selective, but you should be fair and know what you are doing. Either we describe the official FIDE rules, and the chess notation is a part of it, or we describe a coffeehouse chess, and then we should state it in advance, find sources about it and be consistent.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me there's a bright line between things like castling, en passant and promotion rules which are part of the intrinsic rules of the game, and time controls and notation which are more like the rules of formal competition. In 1800 such rules didn't exist. Besides notation is not strictly enforced, I've never heard of anyone being penalized for using an "incorrect" notation. I know a player who records his games in Hungarian algebraic, no TD has ever sanctioned or even warned him for it. Nor should they. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but they still do use a notation, otherwise it would be impossible to honor rules such as threefold repetition... You are right that the rules like "rook moves on a straight line" are older and much more central to chess than algebraic notation or time controls. Which is why they are mentioned first in the article. But even the younger and less central rules are still rules and should be included in the Rules chapter.Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that "official" should be an officially recognized (pun intended) as a word to watch. It's a very good point. We should all strive for a Wikipedia that doesn't use sly rhetoric and smart puffery. Lukan27 (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Casting announcements indicating that she's been cast in roles in films that haven't been released yet does not help to establish an actor's notability per

WP:NACTOR

-- NACTOR only cares about roles that have already been released, not future films that haven't even really started production yet. The only source here that's genuinely starting to get her somewhere is the Elle piece, but that's not enough all by itself.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:Moses Ingram
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  Draft:Moses Ingram, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't comment on it at Talk:List of chess grandmasters because I already have a dozen tl;dr posts on that page, but I fully agree with you about the folly of premature flagulation in knockout tournament brackets. I remember seeing some discussion about it a fair while back. I didn't get involved because I don't do much editing on those articles. It isn't the greatest wikipedia sin, but it's strange to me that people would insist on doing it. And I think it is people, as in more than one. The fact that no reputable publication puts flags in future rounds before the players have been determined should be reason enough for people to realize that it's a bad idea and entirely pointless, but some wikipedia editors have odd notions of what is sensible. Also your comment about the ease in getting FIDE to change their records is interesting. It only helps the living, of course, so any errors FIDE has made in records for persons now deceased will never be corrected by FIDE. We can, if and when we can find the mistakes and support it with sources. Quale (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Vasyl Ivanchuk only recently contacted FIDE and asked them to Ukrainianize his first name. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was in April of last year. I remember because he also created a Wikipedia account and got his article successfully moved.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I directed you to

I wrote something with clear intent, you changed it. I don't like that, and it's contrary to

WP:TPO. It's not a personal attack. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Who said anything about a personal attack? Headers are not to express a "clear intent" regarding the ultimate resolution of the thread. This is not a complicated matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the meaning of someone's text is not acceptable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"... spent most of her saving ..." -- is this a NZ versus US English thing? I would certainly use "savings" here. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it's a typo. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

I'll address some of your recent reverts of my edits on the article:

• "Castling consists of moving the king two squares along the first rank toward a rook on the player's first rank, and then placing the rook on the last square that the king crossed." That is factually incorrect. Castling can be performed on the eighth rank as well as the first rank given the player has the Black pieces. Why did you reinstate this obvious mistake? Btw, what "the player's first rank" is is still very unclear from the context, so even if we were to replace all mentions of "first rank" with "the player's first rank", that wouldn't make it much better.
• "unnecessary words that add nothing". If a game ends in stalemate, the game is drawn. If the game ends in a dead position, the game is drawn. If the game ends in three-fold repetition, the game is drawn. How do you like this passage? It feels a bit repetitive, doesn't it? Luckily, English language has the word "also" for situations just like this. If we don't make use of that word here, we should just ban it from usage, as you're not going to get a situation in which it is more suitable than this one.
• "we havwen't mentioned any ways games can end in draws yet" Ironically, the revert that I just discussed addresses two ways in which games can end in a draw. Or did you mean something else?
• I have addressed your remaining revert in my re-revert edsum. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Portugese Wikipedia Rei (Xadrez) article is much better than the English King (chess) one. The Portugese Wikipedia also doesn't have wildly different standards. If quality is (one of the) the problem(s) then I am fine with submitting a draft to someone beforehand. Alshfik (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree that the Portuguese article is better, or that it should be used as a basis for the English article. There's stuff in there that I don't agree with, for example it is not considered good etiquette to announce "check" outside of informal games. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is the statements inside the Rei (Xadrez) article, then I think the best course of action is to take the dubious statements (may also be coupled with mistranslated or poorly written statements) and add them to a section on the talk page. This way it can be used as a reference (similar to needs citation) for the editors. Also, can you elaborate on your viewpoint that the Portuguese article isn't better? Alshfik (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

I am OK with this edit [8], but the edit summary is not self-explanatory. We don't mention, in the lead paragraphs, that Fischer was ethnically Jewish. So it was natural for the IP editor to want to correct that "omission". If this causes discussion or edit warring, be sure to mention all the discussions of Jewishness on Fischer's talk page. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a touchy subject because Fischer never self-identified as Jewish, and explicitly asked to be removed from Encyclopedia Judaica. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the notation, and general phrasing.

The source for the commentary on 3. d3 is IM Miodrag, incase you were curious. I've also edited large portions of [[9]]'s page. Would appreciate your comments if you've got the time. Cheers.

You may be interested in the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Article_size. You are not the only ones with this problem.VarmtheHawk (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve undone your

Yes it's a truly moronic chant, but there were about 20 votes for keep and about 2 for close. This is an obvious overwhelming consensus and it doesn't take an admin to determine this, nor is there any need to waste anyone's time by keeping it open any longer. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I count 12 delete or merge/redirect votes, and that’s not even going into how many on either side are policy-based and therefore worth considering. At the very least, any close here needs a detailed rationale or it will likely end up at

WP:DRV. I don’t see the harm in letting it run the full discussion period. clpo13_(talk) 00:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benoni Defense, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benoni.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MaxBrowne2! I'd like to invite you to take part in this discussion since it seems you were involved:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Chess_Championship_2021#Wikipedia_bias_against_Russian_sportspeople_and_its_own_rules_violation

2601:1C0:CB01:2660:A056:F425:465E:703F (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re a great editor. I think we’ve had our differences but I respect you. I think you’re editing style is minimalist and very strong. Michuk (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My style is not as minimalist as your style is. I believe in furnishing the reader with enough information but not too much or needless repetition. However I feel that each article or section of an article must have enough references to remove ambiguity or having to search 🔍 for confirmation of units of measurement and formats used. An encyclopaedia literally means recurrent reinforced information, those points of recurrence and reinforcement are those areas that in a minimalist perspective are too often sensed as unnecessary detail and repetition. There needs to be compromise that gives Wikipedia readers a good experience and doesn’t result in a tug of war between editors. Michuk (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something being

See

WP:NAC. A non-admin should not make an early close when there is clear disagreement. One week is the normal time for an Afd. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

See

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Please self-revert your reverts.

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is what you need to read. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Your closure is completely inappropriate. An Afd is not a vote, and several of these "votes" are "per (instert username)" and by IPs. It is clear that a consensus has not been established. Also, stop using anti-vandal tools for reverts. It's insulting. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an administrator and therefore cannot 'revert' a close, per

WP:DRV. Daniel (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't know how this will turn out, but I would certainly be willing to criticize the article some more, and would try to be less eccentric the next time around. What an embarrassingly bad concept. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaxBrowne2. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We sure seem to be... discussing... things with each other a lot, so I think we should find a more practical way to do it than Wikipedia comment sections. You got a Discord or something? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is the appropriate forum to discuss article improvements. It's not personal. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not personal, I'm just saying that it's not practical. All I want is to be notified the instant someone responds to me; I don't want to have to constantly refresh a page just to have a conversation. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one might find "Edit Conflict!" just a wee bit annoying, the 20th time. But, the rest of us are learning a lot from following the talk page, so I hope you can mostly hang out there. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Algebraic notation (chess), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Game of the Century.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone you previously had a dispute with is going to my account and undoing all my edits, I try to use the talk page that Wikipedia recommends for disputes but he dismisses everything I say and continues to delete all my posts, what should I do to fix this? Bobisland (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The right way (which I didn't observe before) is to take it to

WP:AN3 if they have reverted the same content 3 or more times in a day. But be careful, if you're edit warring yourself it could backfire on you. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

More modern. According to Hooper & Whyld, passar battaglia dates to the 13th century when the initial two-square move was introduced and en passant wasn't introduced until the 15th century. The 15th is more modern than the 13th. Quale (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wording suggests the Italian rules were backward, rather than just different. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you read into it, but it isn't what the word wikt:modern means. En passant is the modern rule, passar battaglia is an ancient rule. Quale (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Words have dictionary definitions (which vary across dictionaries) but that doesn't necessarily reflect how they're interpreted. "Modern" has a value judgement about it, and wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I might have been too biased. Sorry. I wonder why Schliemann got his name even though he first played 3...Bc5, and Jaenisch played it a decade before Schliemann, and Jaenisch was a top 10 player while Schliemann was a lawyer! Jishiboka1 (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of names that don't make sense. "Muzio Gambit" is based on a mistranslation and should really be called Polerio Gambit. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You undid my change to the Queen's Gambit article. Thank you for explaining the reason.

However, the "Variations" section remains incomprehensible to non-experts: it introduces the terms "Orthodox Defense" and "Tarrasch Defense" but doesn't define them. It then launches into a long list of variations, implying that they relate to "Orthodox" and "Tarrasch" but, again, doesn't explain how.

Since you know this subject matter, could you please improve the section, to make it comprehensible to non-experts?

— Black Walnut ^talk 12:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it. A lot of it is branched out to the Queen's Gambit Declined article. MaxBrowne2 (talk)

Care to explain why you reverted my edits to the Checkmate article? As someone who is new to chess, I felt it was confusing how the article gave examples before explaining what a checkmate actually is and what the different positions are. Having the section further down would give the reader the proper context to understand the examples. Zerbu ^💬 00:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article pre-supposes that the reader knows the rules of chess, so I don't see why illustrations of how checkmate can occur in a variety of positions and in various phases of the game is confusing. Certainly it doesn't need to go right to the end of the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on the recent edit to the annotation of 31...Qh4 in game 8 of the World Chess Championship 2023 - Chess.com's article says 31...Qh4?? (while the analysis by Leitao shows 31...Qh4?)[10], chess24's article has 31...Qh4!?[11], and Chess News has 31...Qh4?

In the interest of following the sources, I think 31...Qh4? seems probably the best option - there is a lack of consensus between sources, but that does seem to be the most common one - the diagram describes that the winning move was extremely difficult to calculate, so I don't feel there's a need to reflect anything beyond the objective quality of the move here Crazyjonyjon465 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me I'd give it a !. (Confusingly, in the report at the FIDE site they give it both a ! and a ?). In a lost position and with both players short of time, it was an excellent practical shot. It worked, too, because Ding didn't have time to calculate it. OTB chess is a fight, not a science, and the engine evals are irrelevant in this context. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes intuitive sense - I think for something as objective as annotation (especially for this kind of move), it's probably best to just go with whatever the most sources say, and right now, that seems to be ?, so I'll put it down as that Crazyjonyjon465 (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as an "objective" annotation symbol. I always admired Tal's 25...h5!! vs Portisch, one of Tim Krabbe's most fantastic moves of all time, but engines will tell you it's a mistake. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC) By the way The Week In Chess agrees with "!?". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who changed ?? to ? . I'd be happy to change to ?! or !?, but I'd like to see it in more sources first. (Much as I admire TWIC, the editor is not a titled player, so even though I prefer his annotation I don't think we should use it unless he in turn cites a GM). Adpete (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Regarding this edit [12], I still prefer "winning material advantage", You say "giving back the rook and then some"; I know that, but he gets a new queen! Adpete (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 2nd thoughts yours is fine - nice and succinct! Adpete (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have four glossary entries w/ root word "force": forced mate, forced move, forced win, and forcing move. If does a common English word really need a wikilink? means the same thing in chess context as in everyday English is totally true, then logically shouldn't those gloss entries go to? Methinks there might be unaquainted readers wondering whether or not "force" may mean something at least somewhat special in chess context when they run across phrases employing it!? --IHTS (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore it if you want, it's not a big deal for me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. --IHTS (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curious to know: who are you pulling for in the match? --IHTS (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither really. I'm just enjoying the spectacle. We're supposed to be NPOV aren't we? It's good that my edits are not showing any favoritism so that you had to ask. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a favorite, but when editing, total objectivity. ;) --IHTS (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yan's good at tactics too, all GMs are. And I'm still in awe of his 31...Qh4 in game 8. I am totally disgusted that anyone would award that move even one "?" let alone two. Fuck the engines, this is how you play when you're in a losing position, you try to complicate things and make your opponent go wrong. There are no points awarded for losing in 60 moves instead of 40. If it was up to me I'd give it 2 exclams. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (Fischer said he believed in good moves not psychology. But he was also called a "machine"/"computer". Lots of books on chess psychology!) --IHTS (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thewriter006's behavior with regard to BLPs has come up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Assistance providing guidance to User:Thewriter006. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carlo Cadona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gilman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can stop being a jerk in your editsums if possible? --IHTS (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I was being a jerk, certainly not on a personal level to any particular person. Maybe it was an artifact. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC) (didn't know it was you who added the cn tag, and the editsum wasn't aimed at you). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC) (might have trod on the eggshells a bit more carefully if I knew it was you). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thx for the reply. --IHTS (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

holy hell Welso (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If possible could you change the name of the N-L Attack article to include an ndash? Hopefully this might keep user IHTS on board. (I'm fairly sure that it did appear with ndash at some point over the last couple of days, but at the time of writing it has a hyphen). Thanks.

Also, the first time I accessed the article directly after your change, entering 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' in the search bar took me directly there, but now it goes there via a re-direct page. Any ideas on why that is? Axad12 (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to get involved in the argument of whether it's a hyphen or an n-dash, or whether it's Nimzo-Larsen or Nimzowitsch-Larsen, as long as Nimzo(witsch) is included in the title. Any of these is an improvement on Larsen's Opening. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see where you are coming from, but IHTS was most insistent that if the title was to be 'Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack' it should be spelt with an ndash, and he and I have always agreed on that point. He has said on the N-L talk page that he interprets the name change (without hyphen) to be an 'intentional personal dig' against him, which I'm sure was not your intention.

(The disagreement on that page has been on 2 entirely separate issues, i.e. whether (1) the title should have Nimzowitsch or Nimzo in the title, and (2), if it should be Nimzo, should Nimzo-Larsen be spelt with an ndash or a hyphen. There has never been any disagreement that if the title is to be Nimzowitsch-Larsen then it should be spelt with an ndash).

Personally I don't mind one way or the other whether Nimzowitsch-Larsen should have an ndash or a hyphen (To be honest, I think the reaction has been blown completely out of proportion). I'm simply intervening because IHTS seems to have taken very great offence at what you have done, and the situation seems rather unfortunate since it was over a matter on which there was actually agreement.

(For example: as I said over on the N-L talk page: 'it seems that you, I and MaxBrowne2 are basically agreed that the article should be titled 'Nimzowitsch(ndash)Larsen Attack' and that the first line should read 'The Nimzowitsch(ndash)Larsen Attack (usually abbreviated to Nimzo-Larsen Attack)...'.)

The difficulties on the talk page all stemmed from an unresolved disagreement over whether Nimzo-Larsen should take an ndash or a hyphen. I suggested that it would be more consistent if a hyphen was used (as in 'Nimzo-Indian') and that was where things began to go downhill. But if we go with NIMZOWITSCH-Larsen then I have always agreed with IHTS that an ndash is correct, as in Caro-Kann, Smith-Morra Gambit, etc.

Hopefully this clarifies matters. Feel free to discuss with IHTS. Axad12 (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get involved. Move the article back for all I care. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Max (if I may be so forward). I understand your reverting of my attempt to improve the List_of_female_chess_players page. Unfortunately, the previous and current version suffers from a serious (imo) flaw, in that it is worded as if it is a largely comprehensive source of important female chess players that appear within Wikipedia, but it is actually only a sample of a different Wikipedia category page with far more female chess players. This other category page is hard to find AND a casual reader has little reason to suspect it even exists. (Maybe this is just me and my poor Wikipedia skills, but I didn't stumble on the category page until my fourth or fifth visit looking for information, AND I think my experience is likely generalizable among the 'non-pro user' population.)

The category page *is* listed at the bottom of the List_of_female_chess_players page under See Also, so clearly it is considered a good enough source to appear on this page, but that positioning does not imply or even hint that it is actually a more comprehensive (and very similar) list. I believe we would be doing readers a service in pointing out that they should check it out too, without requiring them to peruse all the way through this page to find its link. Or at least we should draw their attention near the existing hyperlink to the fact that it contains more info that is strongly (not peripherally, as is implied now) related to the contents of this page. Thanks for your patience and desire to make Wikipedia better! Ranger86 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is this even supposed to mean? How is the usage of singular they/them pronouns in an ambiguous context lazy or distracting whatsoever?

There are better ways to write gender-free language. Not everyone is on board with the singular they and if another way can be found to express the idea, this is preferable. Wholesale substitution of they/them/their for he/him/his without considering context or looking for an alternative formulation has an element of "drive-by" to it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]