Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/FAQ

WikiProject Chess Shortcut: WP:CHESS
Navigation Menu
Project Page	talk
Assessment	talk
Assessment statistics	talk
Review	talk
Chess Portal	talk

This FAQ aims at answering some frequent questions asked by participants of the WikiProject Chess, or just by persons interested in chess.

Format of chess articles

to be continued

Etiquette

to be continued

Articles Assessment

How to assess the importance of a chess article

For an introduction to the general idea of importance assessment, you may read the following articles:

• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment
• Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic
• Template:Importance scheme

The overall philosophy is the following:

Top	Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia
High	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid	Subject fills in more minor details
Low	Subject is mainly of specialist interest.

As this philosophy may be seen as a bit vague and subjective, more precise ways of assessment have been thought of for the scope of the present WikiProject (see hereunder). You can find past discussions on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/FAQ/Assessment#Importance assessment)

How to assess the importance of a chess person

Several systems can be thought off:

¤	"Championship" system	"Articles" system	"Book" system
Top	Classical World champions Their "great predecessors" (Morphy, Anderssen, ...) Other personalities of comparable importance for chess	About 20 articles	Several books written on the chess person
High	People who played for classical World championship but lost FIDE World champions People who were 1st or 2nd in Elo lists for a long time Women World champions Correspondence World champions top chess composers top theoreticians	About 200 articles	One book written on the chess person, and extensive mentions in several books
Mid	People who were in the top ten Players who won important tournaments Key chess organizers (FIDE Presidents and similar) People who gave their name to important openings or to other important chess topics.	About 2000 articles	Mentions in several books
Low	Other notable chess persons: GM,	Other articles on chess persons	At least one mention in one book

Each system has its pros and cons, for example:

• the "Championship" system ensures players are sorted proportionally to their performance,
• the "Articles" system ensures we get a pyramidal relationship between assessment classes,
• the "Book" system ensures notability and implicitely relies on importance assessment made by established authors. Also, it can be objectively applied to any subject.

The best may be a combination of all systems, so be bold in your assessment, but open to discussion if others disagree.

How to assess the importance of a chess opening

Several systems can be thought off:

¤	"MCO" system	"Frequency" system	"Articles" system	"Book" system
Top	None	None	About 10 articles	Several books written on the chess person
High	Main chapters in MCO	Frequency > 5% in an established database	About 100 articles	One book written on the chess person, and extensive mentions in several books
Mid	Other chapters in MCO	Frequency > 1% in an established database	About 1000 articles	Mentions in several books
Low	Other notable chess openings	Frequency < 1%	Other articles on chess openings	At least one mention in one book

Miscellaneous

to be continued