Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Notable games

Chijioke2007, Billsmith60: It would be a good idea for this article to have a "notable games" section. Many of our articles about chess players have such sections, and notable games are a well-established feature of articles about chess players in print encyclopedias, such as Hooper and Whyld's Oxford Companion to Chess. However such a section must obey the usual Wiki rules. Look for a reliable source that says that the game is notable; it's especially good if you can quote the source as to why the game is notable, and if you can quote the annotations. For this purpose chessgames.com is not a reliable source, because it is full of user-generated content. It's handy to link to the chessgames.com score so that readers can click through the game, but you have to have another source to vouch for the notability and the annotations.

I have not ventured to add a "notable games" section to this article, because I don't have a good sense of which of his games are notable. So I was happy to see the attempt by Chijioke2007, and I would encourage that editor to keep trying. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You saying this means a lot as it was my first edit. Thank you so much. Another admin said that the edit was in "point of view" and that it was in the wrong section. Please if you can explain that to me, it'll mean a lot as I'm a first-time editor. Can you also give me an idea of a good source to use so that next time, my edit won't be taken down? Chijioke2007 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

WRT Notable Games, "POV" refers to deciding for yourself that some game is notable, rather than relying on published sources. As I read the comments in the chessgames.com page about Karpov-Kasparov, I realized that there were several commenters who thought that that game and Kasparov-Topalov were his best, so I would guess that you were not pushing an unpopular POV, but it's necessary to find some better source, as I mentioned.

To find sources for chess articles, the easiest places to look are online chess news sources such as Chessbase, and (more recently) chess24 and chess.com. The era when Kasparov was at his peak was roughly 1980's to 2000, and it may be that his earlier spectacular games were only covered in print (i.e. magazines and books). This will make it harder to search for them, but you yourself don't have to solve the entire problem: just come up with, say, two good games, and other readers with better libraries can come up with other games.

I'm not sure what the other editor meant by "wrong section". You put the Notable games where I would expect them. I'll let him clarify what he meant. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I've improved the edit according to your advice. Maybe whenever you have time, you can see whether you like it, Chijioke2007 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that you have met the requirements. Language like "one of the most famous combinations ever" is MOS:PUFFERY -- read that guideline carefully, it's important for biographical articles like this one! You'll want to tone down that kind of stuff for both games.

Some Notable Games include the score and a diagram. That might not be a bad idea here, but it's a lot of work, it's OK to leave it for later.

Thanks for this contribution! Garry Kasparov has really needed it. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello all. See the most recent edit summary for why these changes were reverted again. Who defines how notable a game is? However, the new editor should be able to introduce a sub-heading something like 'Some notable games' at the end of 'Assessment and legacy' – my best guess at location – but not merely two games. A minimum of five surely, referenced as attempted so far. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

1).I feel like what defines a notable game is the amount of quality shown and the games that I put there are extremely high quality and are probably among the best games ever played. If you were to go through them and see the public opinion of them, you would agree.

2.) I was planning on adding more games and even if I didn't, then surely others with better knowledge would contribute.

3.) Out of the 17 World Champions, 12 have Notable Games as a totally separate section. The remaining 5 don't have that section at all. Why would we break the trend with Garry Kasparov?

With all due respect, because of the reasons stated above, I don't believe that the edit should have been reverted Chijioke2007 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As with everything in Wikipedia, we judge the notability of something by the extent of coverage in reliable sources. We do NOT judge it by the "quality" of the games. As unheralded and usually anonymous Wikipedia editors, we are presumed to be unqualified to judge quality; thus we MUST rely on our sources.

Chijioke found sources for both games, and they look like good sources to me. If you (Billsmith60) or anyone else does not think that these sources are reliable enough for the purpose, that's another argument. But since you did not make that argument, there is no basis for calling this Notable games section POV. I will take the liberty of restoring it when I finish posting this comment.

I hasten to acknowledge that I thought some of the language used by Chijioke was MOS:PUFFERY, which is a form of POV. I would encourage him to correct that issue, as I indicated in an earlier comment, before I or someone else jumps in to correct it ourselves. Relying on our sources does not include relying on their puffery. It's OK for chess.com or chessbase to publish over-the-top praise of some game, but we're an encyclopedia, and it's not OK for us.

The original placement of the new section was not in the Personal Life section, but after it. That is, the headings for these sections were at the same level, and they appear consecutively in the table of contents. If there is any written guidance (e.g. in WP:CHESS) about the placement of a Notable Games section, I haven't seen it, so we're just using our own judgment. Your idea of putting it under assessment/legacy looks plausible to me, but other chess biographies have put it at the level of the other major sections, so I don't want to take sides. In any case, if you think the section was incorrectly placed, the appropriate response would be to move it, not to delete it. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. I'll try and correct the language used in the section. At the same time, I'll like to apologize for my incorrect assumption as to what makes a notable game. I'll try to correct this in future chess edits. Chijioke2007 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's been moved to where I suggested it should be. Hopefully that works now. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)