Talk:First-move advantage in chess/GA1

GA Review

Well, this is a very interesting article to read. But...

You use GM to stand for Grand Master, and IM for International Master I really don't think you should use that, unless it's very commonly accepted.

You also usually say "White scored XX%". Shouldn't you just say "White won XX%"?

"According to GM Evgeny Sveshnikov, statistics show that color has no effect in games between beginners, but "if the players are stronger, White has the lead."

I think you should specify that it's white/black pieces color, not some other color.

Few More Comments Coming Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and efforts on the review of this article. Regarding your points above:

1. The abbreviations GM and IM are very common in the chess world, as much as "Dr" for doctor in the non-chess world. For example [1] is a random article on a chess website and starts with "GM Nigel Short" in the introduction. They are clearly not, however, a common abbreviation in the non-chess world, so that someone who does not know chess competition and reads the article could be confused, so I have now changed them all to the full noun.
2. There is a difference between "White scored XX%" and "White won XX%" because draws are counted in the score. So if a player (with white pieces) wins 20% of his games, draws 30% and loses 50%, we can say that "White won 20%" and "White scored 35%" (the 35% coming from 20%+30%/2). This is explained in the first footnote (coming from the Lead).
3. You are right on the colors, I have changed it.

SyG (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article already used "Grandmaster" and "International Master" (each wiki-linked) for the first use of each such term, then wiki-linked "GM" and "IM" the first time each of those abbreviations was used. I would think that should be adequate, or perhaps clearer would be to write "Grandmaster (GM)" and "International Master (IM)" the first time each term was used, and use just "GM" and "IM" thereafter. As SyG said, "GM" and "IM" are universally used in the chess world. Spelling them out each time would be like writing "John Doe, Doctor of Philosophy," "Mary Smith, Master of Arts," "Susan Porter, Medical Doctor" and so forth 50 times in an article rather than using the standard abbreviations Ph.D., M.A., and M.D. Further, the lower case "grandmaster" and "international master" (including at the beginning of sentences) that have now been inserted into the article look horrible to my eye and are inconsistent with the rest of the article, which started out using caps for those terms. Krakatoa (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Krakatoa - use it in full the first time with the abbrieviation in brackets then the shorthand afterwards. You just wouldn't see it any other way anywhere else, there's no need to put Grandmaster and International Master in full every single time. Also agree with Syg regarding scoring.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have done the changes on GM and IM in one single step, so it will be easy to revert. For my side, I agree with Krakatoa and DeathAngel that it looks ugly for a chess player, but I would like to have the comments of NobleStory before we act. SyG (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree on that, as a non-chess player NobleStory's comments are exactly the kind which we need to really make this article special.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Noble Story wrote, "You use GM to stand for Grand Master, and IM for International Master I really don't think you should use that, unless it's very commonly accepted." It in fact is very commonly accepted, as SyG, Caissa's DeathAngel, and I agree. No further comments on the subject having been made in the past two days, I have accordingly used "Grandmaster (GM)" and "International Master (IM)" the first time each of those terms is used, and used just "GM" and "IM" thereafter, as I suggested and Caissa's DeathAngel agreed. Krakatoa (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

More Comments

OK, sorry about not replying for a long time. Anyway, some more comments to tack on:

"This has long been considered one of the sharpest and most problematic (some would have said foolhardy) opening lines."

Saying "(some would have said foolhardy)" seems a bit POV to me.

This is supported by the following reference:

Watson observed that 7...Qb6 "is an astonishing move that those raised with classical chess principles would simply reject as a typical beginner's mistake. Black goes running after a pawn when he is undeveloped and already under attack." Watson 2006, p. 199.

I originally had this reference right after the parenthetical, to make clear that I was paraphrasing Watson, but someone moved the reference to the end of the sentence. In light of your comment, I've moved it back to right after the parenthetical. Krakatoa (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably someone moved the reference to the end of the sentence because it is the usual WP policy to put these references like that, but here I feel that would just lower the quality and I like the reference after the parenthetical better. The point is also: does the word "foolhardy" correctly represents Watson's opinion ? There seems to be a strong negative connotation in this word, and I do not feel such a thing in Watson reference, but my level in English is not sufficient for me to be sure. SyG (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Foolhardy" does indeed have a strong negative connotation, but I think that is warranted by Watson's original text: "an astonishing move that those raised with classical chess principles would simply reject as a typical beginner's mistake." I am not wedded to the word "foolhardy," but think it does a reasonable job of conveying the essence of what Watson said, but much more tersely. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines "foolhardy" as "bold in a reckless way." I think that is roughly equivalent to what Watson said about how those raised with classical principles would regard 7...Qb6: a move where Black, who is nowhere near completing his development, boldly, recklessly, foolishly tries to win a pawn. Krakatoa (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, you wikilink Punctuation (chess) (exclamation and question mark) somewhere in the middle of the article, but it should be wikilinked at the first instance.

What "first instance" are you referring to? As far as I know, the first instance of the use of chess punctuation in the article appears toward the end of the "Drawn with Best Play" section: "1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6!?" The !? at the end is wiki-linked. Krakatoa (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 14:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"In Tatai-Korchnoi, the Italian IM fell victim to Korchnoi's whirlwind mating attack, losing in just 14 moves!"

Using an exclamation outside of quotes isn't really enclyopediac.

True; I've been wondering for a long time when someone was going to take exception to that. I've changed it to a period. Glad you like the article! Krakatoa (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all I can spot, and I think it's almost ready to pass GA. However, one more note: If you're thinking of taking this on to FAC, then I would suggest, per MOS:IMAGES, that you "avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other."

OK, I have tried to fix this. See what you think. Krakatoa (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, that is better, but it creates ugly empty spaces. Probably we should just try to avoid having two images/diagrams facing each other. But then if we try to put one image behing the other, we may realise there is not enough text to fill in ? If you agree, I will try a bit some new layouts. SyG (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Complying with this part of the MOS is not required to pass GAN. However, those white spaces definitely do look ugly, and should be fixed before we move on. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 14:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I have tried various setups but unfortunately I found nothing else than to remove some diagrams. Please see how it looks like now and tell me what you think.

(by the way, in order to get them back again easily if needed, I did not really remove the diagrams, I just neutralised them by transforming them into comments; they are still in the code of the article.) SyG (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since perfect diagrams aren't necessary to get GA status (our immediate objective), and no one has shown a good solution (we either end up with text between two diagrams, or empty space, or we eliminate useful diagrams for no reason). I've put them back as best I could. Krakatoa (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Final GA Review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Technically, no, but for GA status, it's fine.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I found very little wrong with this article, so congratulations to those who worked hard on it. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review! SyG (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)