Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

List of mini chess tournaments

There is the List of strong chess tournaments which comprises only regular open or invitational tournaments held at classical time controls with more than four players. So, there are not such strong tournaments as:

• 1879 London: 1°Henry Edward Bird, 2°-3° Joseph Henry Blackburne, James Mason, 4° George Alcock MacDonnell;
• 1895 Sankt Petersburg: 1° Emanuel Lasker, 2° Wilhelm Steinitz, 3° Harry Pillsbury, 4° Mikhail Chigorin;
• 1905 Ostend: 1° Georg Marco, 2°-3° Frank Marshall, Paul Leonhardt, 4° Richard Teichmann;
• 1918 Berlin: 1° Emanuel Lasker, 2° Akiba Rubinstein, 3° Carl Schlechter, 4° Siegbert Tarrasch;
• 1931 Rotterdam: 1° Salo Landau, 2° Edgar Colle, 3° Savielly Tartakower, 4° Akiba Rubinstein;
• 1937 Bad Nauheim, Stuttgart, Garmisch: 1° Max Euwe, 2°-3° Efim Bogoljubow, Alexander Alekhine, 4° Friedrich Sämisch, etc.

In that situation, I have just started a new category: List of mini chess tournaments which includes strong quadrangular and triangular tournaments. Mibelz, 19:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should List of strong chess tournaments be limited to tournaments of more than 4 players? I think the two articles should be merged. Also, see my comments at Talk:List of strong chess tournaments. Peter Ballard 02:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of limiting list of strong chess tournaments to ones with more than 4 players either. And while the tournaments listed above by Mibelz are noteworthy, some of the other tournaments on that list are less so. A selective merge of the stronger tournaments from list of mini chess tournaments makes sense to me. youngvalter 15:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to joint both lists (List of strong chess tournaments and List of mini chess tournaments), and then to divide a new list into pieces, like in the German Wikipedia (see, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_bedeutendsten_Schachturniere). Mibelz 11:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree on this, the way they do it in the German wikipedia is far better (including the info in the lists). Lets go for it! Voorlandt 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Chess articles and WP:NOT

Recently a number of chess articles have been nominated for deletion. The most common reason given by the nominators and delete !voters on WP:AFD is WP:NOT#HOWTO / WP:NOT#GUIDE. Although I think that this is not a correct interpretation or application of WP:NOT, it seems to be a common point of disagreement. I wonder if we need WP:CHESSISNOTPOKÉMON? (This has been mentioned before.) I'm not sure why WP:NOT#GUIDE has come up more often recently in connection with chess articles than it had in the past. It may be simply a sign that the number of chess pages is growing (over 1800 now, and 2000 seems likely in the fairly near future), so people are more likely to stumble across them. Maybe it's just coincidence, since the deletion nominations have only been made by a small number of editors. I don't know if WP:CHESS participants should try to prepare an explanation of our views on this issue, or if we should try to get WP:NOT to be more explicit about the application of WP:NOT#GUIDE to sports articles. It seems to me that any explanation of rules, tactics, or strategies in any sport (baseball, judo, fencing, etc.) would be subject to the same complaint, so chess isn't the only vulnerable topic. (I don't follow WP:AFD these days so I don't know if other sports have had this come up.) I think WikiPedia is enhanced, not harmed, if it describes enough about the rules and tactics in judo/fencing/football that I could watch a judo/fencing/football match and understand what is going on and why. Note that this doesn't teach me how to judo wrestle, fence, or play football, but only explains the rules and strategies used. For chess, exactly the same. For Pokémon or World of Warcraft not the same. Any thoughts or suggestions? The pages don't usually get deleted, so perhaps we don't need to do anything. Quale 07:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Briefly (I hope to say more later), I think we need to do something. I think it is a misintrepation to think that the NOT/GUIDE applies here. We may need to get that clarified. As someone pointed out in the elevator/lift example, it is not really a personal instruction guide. The Rules define the game. "Bishops move on diagonals" is not a suggestion for how to play, it is how the game is played. The article on Tactics tells you about the tactics - it doesn't tell you when to use them, that is up to you. When they talk about instructions, I think of the instruction manual for a product. That is clearly different. Bubba73 (talk), 15:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly WP:NOT#GUIDE needs to be rewritten to exclude articles like rules of chess from falling into its domain. On the other hand, there are some chess-related articles that do begin to cross that line - certain articles on openings and endgames, for instance.

It's easy to think that the content we have here already is great because it doesn't exist anywhere else online. And it's easy to get frustrated when an outside editor demands we rewrite articles in a less "instructional" manner or to include information that is more "encyclopedic" in nature, because it's often simply impossible to find info on the historical development of a chess opening, for example, without indulging in a bit of WP:OR. And since a lot of chess literature is written from an instructional point of view, that's often how our articles turn out as well. Non-chessplayers don't and can't really appreciate this. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the expectations for a proper encyclopedia go beyond that for a standard chess book. As more and more people stumble across Wikipedia's chess-related articles, there's no doubt that we'll see more and more discussions like these; when it happens... well, we'll do the best we can. youngvalter 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above user. Instead of trying to change Wikipedia policy (without good cause, and in this case, I don't see a good cause even being articulated here) to permit this particular kind of article, it'd be better to honestly look at them and consider if it might be worth doing something different. The fact is, there are still articles in the Chess opening category that are unreferenced, and exist only to describe how one should play the opening. Valuable content? Perhaps for a book on chess, but not for a general purpose encyclopedia. An attitude of changing policy, or doing nothing? Will not serve Wikipedia better. FrozenPurpleCube 07:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can help! You can take Modern Chess Openings, Batsford Chess Openings, Nunn's Chess Openings, or any of a number of other books and reference all of the openings that need to be referenced. Bubba73 (talk), 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've looked, I've found nothing in any of the books which I have access to which indicates to me there's anything that amounts to an encyclopedic article on them. You'll have to pardon me for not going out of my way to improving articles I don't support. If you feel they do, do it yourself. But I think you'd benefit Wikipedia more by putting some additional thought into what you're doing. Myself, I'm less concerned about references than I am about the nature of the articles. References, as I've said before can probably be found to find somebody somewhere advocates one opening or another. So what? That's not encyclopedic, that's instructional. You want to teach people about playing chess? Try Wikibooks. FrozenPurpleCube 01:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This editor is now gone. Bubba73 (talk), 07:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Chess in xxx

I think we should have some "Chess in xxx" articles, for countries xxx for which we have something encyclopedic to say (which means WP:RS sources). These would be survey/overview articles. Unless others think it's a bad idea, I might be able to start a Chess in the United States article this weekend. (If anyone feels it's a good idea and wants to get started right away, that would be great.) There is potentially a lot to say for at least some countries. Some of the references I have (Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess and Sunnucks' Encyclopedia of Chess) have articles on the most prominent chess nations that can be used as skeletons on which we can add more flesh, possibly including

• brief history of chess in the country
• important chess organizations, historically and currently
• description of most notable clubs, overall club structure and any national team chess (team play more important in Europe than the U.S., I think)
• estimates of number of players and number of rated players
• top chess players (world champions and contenders), important theorists and writers, notable chess patrons
• summary of Chess Olympiad participation
• most important chess publications (magazines and newspaper columns, and now web sites too)
• international tournaments and national championship tournaments, important historical tournaments including World Championship matches
• national tournaments that don't warrant a solo article but can be given a brief mention if they are noteworthy (state championships and some other well-established national tourneys)
• other stuff I haven't thought of

These articles would be the main articles for the categories in Category:Chess by country. One of the reasons I have for this is purely selfish: if others create good articles of this sort (especially about chess in non-English speaking countries) I will enjoy reading them. Any thoughts or suggestions? Quale 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One article for each variation ?

It seems our fellow Wikipedian User:Use the force has started to create one article for each chess subvariation. For example he has already created Abbazia Defense, Australian Gambit, Basque Gambit, Benelux Variation, Berlin Variation, all of them as stub. While some of them may be worth a separate article (maybe the Berlin variation ?), where do you think we should draw the limit (if any) ? As a reminder, we already had some similar discussions in the past that you can find in the chapter "1.6 New Merge Pages" in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/FAQ/Etiquette#Notability. My first reaction would be to allow a separate article only on a subvariation importance enough to have a book dealing only about it. SyG 19:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• As you note, this has been discussed before. My opinion is that it's a bad idea to write stubs on variations and subvariations. Sometimes stubs are useful, such as stub biographies, as there's no obvious parent to merge them to. In the case of chess openings variations, stubs make more work because they should be merged into their parents. The variation can get its own section in the parent article, and if it grows too large it can be split out from the parent in WP:SUMMARY summary style. Having redirects from the variation names is useful, but it would be better if they were simply created as redirects rather than forcing unnecessary merge work. For instance, the Berlin Variation stub is worse than useless, because the parent Ruy Lopez#Berlin Defence is not only a much better discussion of the Berlin, but it also has the correct name. "Berlin Variation" is technically acceptable, but it isn't the common name for the Berlin Defence. The geocities link given in the article should be removed as geocities is not a WP:RS reliable source. The Berlin Variation article has another problem, as the Berlin Defence is not only found in the Ruy, but also in Bishop's Opening and probably others. (That's actually a good reason for a Berlin Defence/Defense article—it's needed as a disambiguation.) Newly created stubs that are so much worse than their parents is quite a trick, but we've seen it before. As always, large numbers of chess opening articles are more likely to attract the attention of those who want to improve wikipedia by removing non-notable articles. I actually support this goal, but unfortunately the "helpers" are typically clueless and are just as likely to try to remove Danish Gambit as Basque Gambit. Last time we let this get out of hand. I think we should try to nip this in the bud. Quale 20:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. We've had two editors do thie before - create stubs of a lot of subvariations and/or ECO codes. It caused a lot of problems and a lot of work for the ones who had to clean it up. I would say that a stub for a vatiation or sub-variation should not be created. Only if there is at least enough material for a "start" class article should it have its own article. Bubba73 (talk), 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As suggested by Quale, I have turned the entire Berlin Variation article into a redirect to a disambiguation page. Another of the variation-stubs, the Bulgarian Variation was prod-ed and eventually deleted, in part due to lack of sources, in part due to obscurity, and in part due to the fact that proffesional analyses of the "Bulgarian Variation" refer to a different variation of the Ruy than the article alluded to. My opinion is that most variations should not have separate articles. There are exceptions, the major variations of the Sicilian Defense (Najdorf, Dragon, Scheveningen, etc.) and a few others have entire books devoted to them and are played so often that they justify separate articles. Most of the new stubs we have received the past don't make that mark. A separate article for the Berlin Variation of the Ruy Lopez is kind of borderline, but the article we had was not as good as the section already found in the main Ruy Lopez article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the criteria of there being a book about a variation in order to justify an article about it. That would make it notable. Bubba73 (talk), 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

PGN template

Could I be so bold to suggest the creation of a PGN template? It would be very useful to be able to import a game or series of chess moves from an article in to the reader's database, and PGN is the ideal format for such a cross-platform import.

The Lev Alburt article is a case in point. There, a long game is transcribed, which is nice. But, in order to get the game in to one's database, the reader would have to manually copy and paste the game, and then type in or copy the metadata (such as the names of the players, date, site, event, etc) in to the appropriate PGN headers. If it was already in PGN format (perhaps with a link to the PGN file next to the game moves), all of this could be taken care of when the reader copies over the PGN-format game, or uses a PGN viewer to browse through the game. -- noosphere 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting suggestion. For the sake of information, two years ago the Wikipedian "Dalf" made a similar suggestion that you can find at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/FAQ/Format#Games, and that was apparently not possible for "security reasons".

Instead of a PGN file, a suggestion would be to put the game in PGN format in a footnote, what do you think ? Another suggestion would be to create a special section "Games in PGN format" ? SyG 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Any of those would be better than what we have now. But if having a PGN format "file" is considered some kind of security risk, I don't see how these other suggestions would be any less so.

It would be interesting to find out what these alleged "security reasons" actually are; as, on the face of it, banning PGN files because of being "security risks" sounds as ridiculous as banning JPEG or GIF files (or Wikipedia articles in general).

PGN is just another file format, and I've yet to hear of any security compromises even being possible through a PGN file. Incidentally, it's possible (under some circumstances) to hack a computer via a JPEG file[1], but I don't hear anyone propose that JPEGs be banned from Wikipedia. Or maybe I'm just out of the loop. What am I missing here? -- noosphere 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Chess Enhancements

Hello All!
I have a background in computer science and programming in general. With this, I would love to help out in creating some really cool/easy to use things for Chess Wiki to use. So far I've developed a way to generate FEN from any Template:Chess_diagram input. The template can be found here, but is still in testing phase. Hopefully, with the help of everyone here testing and providing feedback, we can decide on if we would like to add this to the current Chess Template. The benefit to adding this to the Chess Template is that is would automatically appear on all diagrams generated from the template.

Anyways, please test it out and let me know what you guys think. As well, I'm open to any suggestions on what should be done next (in the same computer programming aspect). I've started on some script to help generate any chess template, no matter which variant. Also I should be able to do the opposite as what I've done already, which is to generate a position from a FEN string.
Comments, opinions, suggestions, concerns, questions are all greatly welcomed.
Thank you for your time, MatthewYeager 19:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That is great! Your original approach was to have the {{{castling}}}, {{{fullmove}}}, and other fields as separate variables. I've changed it into one {{{FEN}}} variable. What does everyone think of this? —ZeroOne (talk / @) 22:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to keep everyone on the same page. I'm creating a tool for chess (soon every game) to be able to easily generate any type of diagram. This will keep all of our diagrams Standardized and easy for people to make. I finished with having it render any standard chess diagram from 1. Starting Position Checkbox, 2. Position Input (what we currently have to do ex. rl|nl|bl) and now 3. FEN String!!
If anyone has any other methods of input they would like to use, let me know. I'm open to adding anything that would make things easier. Now I'm going to work on making all the variants for chess. MatthewYeager 05:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

well i've completed this tool for all chess variants with templates that i could find (let me know if there are others somewhere). I think its a pretty awesome tool, if i say so myself. to use this, go to your USERNAME/monobook.js page and add

importScript('User:Matthew_Yeager/renderboard.js');

then, clear your cache and you should see a button in the top right of your screen called "render game board". pick a variant and fill in whatever info you want (alignment, header, footer) and then your method of input (checkbox if you just want the normal starting position for that variant, position entry (which is just like now we do it now ex. rl|nl|bl (leave beginning and ending '|' off)) and ALL of them (except the Raumschach 5x5x5 variant) accepts FEN string. for the variants that have 10 columns or 10 rows, you have to enter 91 for a blank row on the FEN string (example would be rnbqk5/91/91/91/91 and so on). after you pick your options just hit the 'submit query' button and it will render the wiki code in the results box for you to copy and paste onto your page. its called "render game board" because i hope to expand this to more games such as checkers and go and whatnot.

Please test this out and let me know what you think. Positive and negative feedback are needed to make this an awesome enhancement. if you have any questions about using it, let me know. I think its pretty straightforward. I'll document all the features and which templates it can make and whats the syntax for each template in a few hours (NEED SLEEP =P ). Thank you for your time MatthewYeager 08:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly should this "render game board" button appear? It's not working right now, but it could be some server-related problem, even though I've tried using a different browser, logging out and in, clearing the browser cache and purging the article pages. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

After you import the script and and you purge your cache (for me, i use firefox, its shift + clicking refresh) you will see "render game board" link on the top right of your screen.

ZeroOne My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions render game board

let me know if you still cant get it to work. MatthewYeager 21:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The script I made, RenderBoard, has been documented on my talk page. Explains how to use it, what it can do and what is coming. Thank you for your time MatthewYeager 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one commented here, I decided to be WP:BOLD and moved (well, copied) the new diagram template from User:Matthew Yeager/Chess Render FEN to Template:Chess diagram. Any thoughts now? I think it's a great improvement anyway. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 22:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

	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

• I think it has to be reverted. I don't like what it's done to the main diagram in chess opening, Slav Defense, and Ruy Lopez, for example, and I'm surprised you think it's an improvement. Most of our uses of chess diagrams are in chess opening articles, and FEN isn't really a big benefit there. These diagrams take a lot more vertical space than the old ones, and I think that makes them worse. To me FEN is a minor issue. If it's added to diagrams at all there should be a required parameter to turn it on (defaulting to off). Here are some of my ideas on how the chess diagrams could be improved substantially:

• Simplify the box layout—There are far too many boxes. I also find the gray background distracting, but it does match the standard wiki formating of images (where I also find the gray background and extra boxing distracting and unneeded). Chess diagrams in books are never boxed because it's distracting, ugly, and unnecessary.
• The caption text is misaligned to the edge of the outside box. The text should either be centered or left aligned to the left edge of the chess board, not left aligned to the outermost box.
• The coordinates are rendered in a non-antialiased font, which doesn't look very good. Compare Template:Chess position to see how this looked way back in the day.
• The chess diagram has far too much padding around it, making it impossible to float diagrams close enough to each other. You can see this effect on the Slav Defense page where the multiple rows of diagrams have a huge gap between them. Our float layouts would be greatly improved in articles with many diagrams if we simply left the padding to the tleft and tright CSS classes.
• Wish list item: I wish our chess piece images had the clean, modern look of those used in Chess Life, My 60 Memorable Games, and the Fritz default, rather than the rather antique pattern we have now. The pawns are especially unattractive—bloated, bottom-heavy blobs. Despite my kvetching, I greatly appreciate the work of those who have made chess diagrams possible without requiring image uploads. Quale 23:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For me, the "show" part of the FEN line are two characters too far to the left. And it doesn't handle non-piece notations correctly, e.g. at Corresponding squares Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The font size used in the captions is now microscopic, and I don't remember it being that small. Quale 03:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I find it convenient that I can copy the positions from, say, the Nolot article directly into my chess software. The font size issue was well spotted, I've fixed it now. The boxy look originates from the times before the template, when all diagrams were images. You can always write your own CSS style sheets to override those of Wikipedia to make all images look more like you want. See the documentation of your browser for more instructions on that. I don't think this is the appropriate thread to discuss general improvements, such as the piece style, to the diagram though. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 11:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the template had one extra line break in its layout. I removed it and it's not as tall as it used to be anymore. What do you think of it now? —ZeroOne (talk / @) 12:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The boxitis isn't directly from diagrams as images, as the older diagrams Template:Chess position didn't have it. That was a mistake made when pushing the previous Template:Chess diagram. I still don't like the change. Consider the diagram above. Why would any reader care about a "[show] FEN", and what does that have to do with the Slav Defense? It clutters the diagram to no good purpose, and adds extra unexplained stuff for those who are already struggling with algebraic notation. The fixes you made make it better, but it's still taller than the old diagram, and vertical space is very dear on pages like Ruy Lopez that have many diagrams. I can see where it is useful on the odd page like nolot, but if you want about a hundred fifty examples of where it sucks, I direct your attention to Category:Chess openings. Find a way to turn it off by default and then enable it on the diagrams on nolot and I will have no objections. Quale 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

woah, no progress was being made until it was boldly transfered over, obviously i should have continued to check in on this convo : ) . I've been doing much of the work with the template and would love to implement some of the changes brought up as long as thats what the community is in agreement with. I can make the template default to NO FEN and then on the selected, more complex diagrams (should be few) that this is needed, it can be turned on manually. I think this will please much of the complaint. the formatting, alignment and padding I can reduce and is an overall good enhancement. Lets see if we can get a list of solid enhancements together.

what would you think would be an easier way for a user to understand this ? I can have an "Include FEN" parameter or I can just check to see if any FEN parameters where passed, if not dont show (which would cause all the old diagrams to NOT show FEN, unless additional info was provided) whatcha think ? MatthewYeager 16:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quale, I think the FEN is not useful only on the odd page like Nolot but also in the whole Category:Chess games. Of course it is much smaller than the opening category though, so I guess the FEN could be off by default. I think a parameter like "enableFEN=1" would be good. Can you implement this, Matthew? —ZeroOne (talk / @) 20:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If thats what everyone agrees with, i have no problem doing it. MatthewYeager 02:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the situation is right now, but I think you should definitely go ahead with the change (FEN off by default).Voorlandt 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the FEN feature is nice to have—sometimes. But if it is possible to have the template dafault to not having it, I agree this would be a significant improvement. A new user just learning how to use the template wouldn't have to also worry about what a FEN string is, but once a diagram was up, someone could come along and ad it if appropriate. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Having the FEN feature is definitely cool, but please make it off by default, because otherwise all existing diagrams will have an empty "FEN" link. SyG 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

SyG: In case you haven't noticed, the FEN string is automatically generated for all existing diagrams. Just click "show". —ZeroOne (talk / @) 23:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's automatically generated but it isn't correct. As Bubba73 pointed out it doesn't work correctly for boards that use any markings on the squares (X or O or 1,2,..). Also, it doesn't even really automatically generate correct FEN, since it doesn't deal with castling rights or en passant (or much less importantly the 50 move rule). A robust solution would allow the FEN string to be specified if the maker of the diagram chooses in order to get the string correct. The cute [show] business seems like a waste to me, as it simply takes up a whole line to no good purpose. (When [show] is clicked the FEN is displayed on a second line, so it takes two lines total with one line devoted only to [show] FEN.) If you want the FEN string on a diagram it would probably make sense to display it all the time. Quale 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot something else really obvious: automatic FEN generation can't even get the most basic thing right—it doesn't tell who is on the move. Quale 15:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a crystal ball, how could it tell that? If you want castling rights and the other fields to be displayed, you need to manually fill in the FEN-parameter of the template. It is then added after the automatically generated position string. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 22:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Since correct FEN can't ever be generated automatically from the diagram, why do we insist that incorrect FEN always be generated for every single diagram, including hundreds for which a FEN string is pointless clutter? P.S. If you want a FEN string in a diagram for which it might be helpful, you can put it in yourself simply by putting it in the caption by hand. This has always been possible and doesn't require a new template parameter. Quale 22:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have made the old version default again, until the template is fixed. Voorlandt 13:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

World Youth Chess Championship - Help requested

I have started an article on this, and I am having problems to find information. Does somebody know:

• When these competitions started? (U16 boys: 1974, U16 girls:1981, but other age groups?)
• The winners of 1990: girls U16 and girls U18
• Maybe someone has a complete list? In 2002, there was a book published: Iclicki, Willy (2002), FIDE Golden Book 1924-2002 I am pretty sure it has this information, but it seems not possible to order this book. Does someone own it? It would be a great source also for other information we need. (btw I read Iclicki is also working on a 2500 page chess encyclopedia - hopefully orderable!)

I also posted this question on the German wikipedia, since they seem to have a lot of accurate info on these championships in their biography articles. Thanks a lot for your time, and I really hope somebody can help me! Voorlandt 09:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe another possible source for the Singapore 1990 Youth Championship is 'Chess' Magazine (Vol. 55, October 16 issue), if anyone has it - unfortunately my own subscription started in 1991! Brittle heaven 10:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for this! I checked the website and it doesn't seem possible to order older volumes. However, could you have a check in a few issues if there is something mentioned on the history of the championship (especially starting dates) -this would be a real help? In the meantime, I am busy pestering people via email about older results.
• Another related issue: an article that really needs checking is the European Youth Chess Championship, the table was taken from the European Chess Union manual 2007. Other results from this manual were littered with mistakes, so it would be great if you could spot-check this table, to see if it was the case here too. However please don't feel under any obligation, because I realise this would be a lot of work.Voorlandt 20:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

World Amateur Chess Championship

In the article it says that the championship was discontinued after 1928. It seems to be revamped in 1995. I don't have time nor resources to work on this. However, I posted some partial results (not always very reliable) on the talk page, so hopefully somebody can complete the list and incorporate it into the article. Voorlandt 15:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)