Talk:Endgame study

old talk[edit]

Just wanted to give the author (as I write there has only been one) a pat on the back for a good page. It's always annoying when someone writes a good page and it appears that noone noticed (actually probably rarely the case but that is not so clear after the page view counter was turned off) Today I noticed this page! Pete 12:42, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I really appreciate it :) --Camembert

Reti study date[edit]

When was the Rety study first published, and where? the main text says 1922, but the text above the diagrm says 1921. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.254.228 (talk • contribs)

Not sure about that. Chernov gives 1921, but it might not have been published until 1922. Bubba73 (talk), 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a long time, there was a lot of confusion about this: the study was often dated as 1921, but (if I remember correctly) nobody was sure of a source including it before 1922 (when I added it originally, I imagine I took the source information from Test Tube Chess, which is by now very probably out of date on this point). The source added above the diagram (Ostrauer Morgenzeitung, 4. 12. 1921) by User:Rainer Staudte (who probably knows what they're talking about better than me) is very specific, and I think it's to be trusted. --Camembert 13:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

Hi I use to have an account on here under which I was heavily active but sort of semi-retired for years and forgot my password and aren't sure about making a new account? Anyhow, I was posting about the example section. I think the compositions suffice in that they give basic demonstration and understanding to notable components of endgame studies. They are visual representations/explanations proving what is argued, just like 1+2=3 is a proving example that an odd plus an even equals an odd. Also like how the current castling example, and no other compositions of "higher notability" have been offered showing these proofs.173.89.186.121 (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your edit seems like promotion of many unremarkable things (and authors like Dehn and Moore). Article does not need something like XXX like a key, just because chess study usually has a point after some introduction. Article needs sections on winning (mate, domination) and drawing (stalemate, positional draw) studies. --Q Valda (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- What makes the long standing castling sections more remarkable than the other similar sections? The simple crediting of one's work to prevent plagiarism is not promotion. "Article does not need something like XXX like a key, just because chess study usually has a point after some introduction." Im not sure what you meant or why you deleted sourced notable information. The article has long been at "start status" needing more detail. The compositions and solution given elaborate on the mechanics of studies. How does the sourced information do "more harm than good" to the article?. I agree that article needs the additional things you stated just as much as the mechanics need to be explored to a depth.173.89.186.121 (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who are Dehn? Moore? What reliable sources about their contribution to chess composition? Which reliable sources about particular moves as keys (first moves of a study)? --Q Valda (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- [1] — sorry, what is sourced info in this diff? --Q Valda (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Persons with multiple "titles" aside from chess composer, like many creators of studies. "What reliable sources about their contribution to chess composition?" "Which reliable sources about particular moves as keys (first moves of a study)?" Im not sure what you meant. This is an article about chess endgame studies not the List of chess endgame study composers. You still have not answered to deleting sourced relative information, which is vandalism.173.89.186.121 (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Try looking here instead [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.186.121 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dehn and Moore are not notable for this article if someone cannot show their notability. And yes, youtube (like other self-published source) is not reliable source, sorry. --Q Valda (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Glad to see you've readded some of my sourced information you kepting deleting. Chess endgame is a another article that focuses on the aspects you brought up, the studies you questioned probably wouldnt belong on that article but does here.173.89.186.121 (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Chess endgame is part of chess game, chess study is part of chess composition. It is different. This article needs sections on winning (mate, domination) and drawing (stalemate, positional draw) studies. Also would be good examples with some particular moves as points (main ideas, not necessarily first moves) — castling, en passant, promotion etc. --Q Valda (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - "(main ideas, not necessarily first moves)" I agree, and by that statement, it can be said that the main idea is not un-necessarily the first move, meaning it is at the very least optional.173.89.186.121 (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - "What reliable sources about their contribution to chess composition?" "Which reliable sources about particular moves as keys (first moves of a study)?" Im not sure what you meant. — please, note Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, WP:WEIGHT --Q Valda (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you removed the visual source proof i gave leaving the information source-less with just the editor's(yours) word to go by? How are Den, Moore, and the video not notable for this article but you are?173.89.186.121 (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You removed the source and information as if it werent true, and now you put the information back using the same proof provided in the video, it that plagiarism?173.89.186.121 (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - sorry, but "visual source proof" — proves nothing but its existence. We need reliable sources with notable examples. --Q Valda (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I put back Lazard's study only. It is good example of engine failing. I've got Harold van der Heijden's database with this study, but we need another reliable source for it. --Q Valda (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - [3] [4] — found these links for Lazard's study. --Q Valda (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        And back Mitrofanov's study, sorry. --Q Valda (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems that your opinion is dictating what is to be deemed "good" and other things. Therefore I will present my strongest case and plea to the wiki voting system as I am not here to cause trouble but to find what is the right outcome.173.89.186.121 (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology[edit]

This article says, "The form is considered to have been raised to an art in the late 19th century, with A. A. Troitsky and Henri Rinck particularly important in this respect." However, the article about Henri Rinck says that his first published composition was from 1902. These are mutually contradictory. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]