Talk:List of World Chess Championships/Archive 1

Archive 1

new layout

I worked during the last weekend on reformating this article. I took tables of other sporting events such as Olympics and Universiades as an example for a new - from my viewpoint: clear - layout. I added information about the venues of the World Chess Championship Matches as well as a column for notes because some World Championships require some additional information from my viewpoint (i.e. 1948, 1993-2007). I hope my improvements are well accepted and this page will be continued carefully after the 2012 World Championship and the announcement of players and venues for future Championship matches. MM 16:01 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Good work! It is certainly a lot easier to get an overview now. dllu (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

old talk

1992 Fischer-Spassky: Although recognized by very few as a legitimate World Championship

I seem to remember a story about Congress passing whatever it is that Congress passes (a bill? an act? I don't know, I'm English) recognising this match as the "true" World Championship. Anybody have a source for that (or am I just imagining it?) --Camembert

1858 Morphy-Anderssen: Due to the modesty of the players, this match was not declared at the time for the "World Championship"

Nevertheless, it deserves inclusion in the list. 1) Because its consistent with the list, as the match between Steinitz and Anderssen was also not proclaimed for the World Championship. 2) Because Morphy was universally hailed as the best player in the world after this match, not because of the match, but because Morphy had clearly demonstrated his superiority over everyone else. As Anderssen was regarded by some as the world's best prior to Morphy, and because this match was the last match Morphy played, it should be seen as establishing Morphy as world champion. --ChessPlayer

Hi, I saw your comments in the Morphy talk page as well, and I must inform/remind you that it isn't wikipedia's business to interpret things or pass judgements. We just report what other people have said. If no one called Morphy-Anderssen a world championship, we don't either. Regardless of whether Morphy could have beaten all the world champions ever in a blindfold simul with odds of a queen and a rook. I don't want to remove it from the list, but the caveat should definitely be noted.

Plenty of people have called Morphy the world chess champion, especially when he was alive. This isn't an interpretation or an opinion, its fact, and Wikipedia should report it. The reason that Steinitz in 1886 felt free to proclaim his match against Zukertort for the "world championship" was that Morphy had just died in 1884. Today, there are books on the history of the world chess championship, and they don't begin with Steinitz. Its simply not true that Steinitz was the first world champion, and there are plenty of books and people that say he wasn't.

What IS true, is that the Steinitz-Zukertort match was the first match where one of the parties, Steinitz, made a big issue out of the fact that the winner was "world champion"; before that, the title was by general consensus, and that was something Steinitz was trying to influence, because a lot of people were calling players like Zuckertort "world champion". You have to understand the change in culture that was happening by the 1880's; before then it was considered quite vulgar to proclaim yourself anything; if you were a champion, you didn't stand on the rooftop and claim it, unless you wanted to be thought a lout. Steinitz did do that, and a lot of people did think him a lout for it, but times were also changing. ChessPlayer 03:56, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why Fischer-Spassky 1992 is in the list. At least Morphy has the excuse of being the best player of the time, but Fischer and Spassky were nothing of the sort in 1992. The match was more like a publicity/money-raising stunt for the aging Fischer coming out of hiding. Congress (which I presume is the United States Congress) passing a law is a totally inadequate reason, since that body has no authority or respect in chess matters. Arvindn 16:34, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fischer-Spassky 1992 is in the list because Fischer defeated Spassky for the world championship in 1972, and no one has ever beaten him. Look, there is no God who has the right to bestow the title; the title is simply whatever people agree on. For awhile, people agreed that FIDE would hold championship matches; but Fischer refused to play by FIDE's rules; so who is to say that FIDE is God and has the power to just declare Fischer no longer champion? The point is especially noteworthy, now that FIDE is in ruins, and there is no agreement at all who is World Champion today. The situation today is more unclear than in 1858, when the world was of unanimous opinion, for all practical purposes, that Morphy was the world champion.

It would be nice and easy to write articles, if history was neat and things like who is world champion were just declared by some God-like authority; but that isn't how things are, and articles rightfully discuss all the ambiguities. Of course, there are some books and some people who don't like ambiguity, and they write things like "Steinitz was the first world champion". But many other authors do tell the more complex tales. ChessPlayer 04:18, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm about to make some slight changes; the Morphy-Anderssen match was one of a number of 'semi'-official world championship matches which conform to the modern pattern (well, up to about 1995 at least) - i.e. Staunton's three games. I think it's about time that each of these matches had a page of its own - especially Spassky-Fischer, there's so much material for that. I'll probably add some sort of context too. Mack

This page should be merged (mostly with World Chess Championship)

This article hasn't substantially changed since 2002. It appears to me that it was written when there were no other pages on the World chess championship or on individual matches or players. That situation has changed. So I suggest that this page is now superfluous: all its content should be moved elsewhere, then it should be deleted. The list of matches should be moved to World Chess Championship, while all "Notes on matches" should be moved to the individual article on the appropriate match or player.

Here's what I suggest: I (and maybe others?) will begin moving the "Notes on matches" into other articles. When that is done, all that will be left is a list of matches, which can then be merged into World Chess Championship. Rocksong 04:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suggest holding off on moving the Notes on Matches, they're not sourced at all, and unless that's done, it'd be inappropriate to move them. I don't disagree with merging the list though, but it's also unsourced. But I do think you should know, that if you move any content elsewhere, then this page can't be deleted. The terms of the WP:GFDL require that a record of edits be kept, so in the case of a merge, it'd be necessary to redirect instead. This is actually a common mistake made on AFD, but I hope you understand why we can't merge and delete. FrozenPurpleCube 05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that should be replace with a redirect, you are right. But as for moving unsourced material, I don't understand your logic. Obviously reference it as it's moved if possible, but that doesn't alter the fact that the information ("Notes on matches") is in the wrong place. As for the list, really, it's a bit like lists of US Presidents: it's common knowledge, and documented in dozens of books. We could add a link to http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/wcc-indx.htm , but that just shifts the problem: another amateur historian who's put together the data from books. Rocksong 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, List of Presidents of the United States has two sources and three external links. So...I'm not sure it's that good of an example, but rather proves my point, it's important to source things, even if they are common knowledge. If it's documented in dozens of books, it shouldn't be that hard to find some. If you just want to move the section with an unreferenced tag, ok, but do leave the tag up. FrozenPurpleCube 13:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but on my main point... nearly all the "Notes on Matches" are in the corresponding match or player page. The only exceptions are the comments on 1998 and 2002 FIDE tournaments. Plus, the details are more or less random - some trivial things are in, some vital things are left out. So, I still think my proposal to gradually delete this article is a good idea. Rocksong 09:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure if we're speaking about quite the same thing. I agree, the details are pretty random. Honestly, I'd have no problem deleting them, or rather, leaving them in the page history and not merging them. If there are valid sources for information about the various matches, it'd be just as easy to start from scratch with them as not. I hope I didn't give you the impression that there was some need to use them, it's just if they are used, they should be sourced. If they are sourced in other articles, well, then those sources should be copied over. If you don't want to bother with it, don't move them. Just copy whatever can be easily sourced, move that where you like, leave the rest in the page history and put up a redirect. FrozenPurpleCube 15:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All "notes on matches" are mentioned elsewhere. I'll delete "Notes on matches" shortly, then hopefully merge the remainder (the match scores) into World Chess Championship. Peter Ballard 11:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Pete, are you historian ? We are missing many matches here buddy, would you say Philidor was the first champ, nobody ever beat him, he was way ahead of his times? Unofficial matches, but still champ. Did you know Lasker demanded from Schlechter he can only win if he wins with two points, not one, he drew the match, then he died a pauper, just like Kieseritsky, Alekhine was right... Chess is vanity! Like editing here and not being appreciated...

Did you know a player by the name of Rubinstein (not polish composer) was saved from death in russian/soviet goolags/gulags by playing chess with the guard and they let him go?! But if Steinitz took on a shorter match against Lasker, he would have prevailed!

All that good stuff is at World Chess Championship, or at the link to the players' pages. This page is a mess. Peter Ballard 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1910 Schlecter match

I thought it worth putting in a footnote that there is some controversy over whether this was actually a World Championship match, as discussed on Edward G. Winter's Chess Notes site here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not much of a controversy, it seems to me. Here is the relevant discussion in the Chess Notes piece:

This was one of three chess articles by Buckley that were to have a particular impact. Another concerned the 1910 Lasker v Schlechter match, the terms of which are an unsolved and probably insoluble mystery. One aspect of the controversy is whether the world championship title was at stake. David Hooper stated on pages 183-184 of the March 1976 CHESS that he did not believe so, and one of his paragraphs read:

‘The American Chess Bulletin, 1910, page 155 writes: “the champion agreed to play a series of games, but it was expressly stipulated that the result was not to touch the title”. I have almost a complete run of this magazine, which Lasker read, and on all other occasions when a comment was published which in any way touched his honour he replied at once: yet on this one occasion he made no comment at all.’

David Hooper was referring to an article by Buckley on pages 155-156 of the June 1910 American Chess Bulletin, but the above-quoted reference to Lasker leaves us flummoxed because a rebuttal by the then world champion was reported within the article itself. [See C.N. 3252 below.] The full text of the relevant passage from Buckley’s article, with the Bulletin Editor’s interjection, is as follows:

‘The result of the late match points to a contest on different terms, a match for the world championship. The ten games lately played constituted a sort of match, but the object was not the settlement of the championship, as many have supposed. If Schlechter had won all the games, Lasker would still have been titular world champion. The champion agreed to play a series of games, but it was expressly stipulated that the result was not to touch the title.

This consideration affects opinion of the result.

(In reply to a query on board the SS Vasari, on 20 May, Dr Lasker, southward bound, said, “Yes, I placed the title at stake”; thereby confirming our understanding of the matter. Notwithstanding this, we can well believe that, owing to the unusual circumstances of the match, many people would have continued to regard Dr Lasker as champion, even had he lost that final game. Ed., ACB.)’

In sum, Hooper said, based on Buckley's statement and Lasker's supposed failure to reply to it, that he didn't think the 1910 Schlechter match was for the title. Winter, perhaps the world's foremost chess historian, says he is "flummoxed" by Hooper's contention, since the Bulletin Editor in the same passage quoted Lasker's statement that the match was for the title, which the Bulletin Editor said "confirm[ed] our understanding of the matter." This matter looks to me more like a misapprehension by Hooper than a genuine controversy. Moreover, I could probably cite 20 reliable sources from my library saying that Lasker-Schlechter 1910 was a world championship match.

I was shocked to see that the article puts the Lasker-Schlechter match in a special category and calls it a "doubted world championship match." I consider this an error, and think that the article should be changed accordingly. Krakatoa (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I think it should be listed as a regular championship, with a footnote saying that one source doubts that it was for the title. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the article as you suggested. Krakatoa (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Move

I have recently moved this page, but there remains one thing that I'm unsure about; should "world chess championships" have capital letters in all three words, as is the case in this entire page (save its title)? Toccata quarta (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Winner in bold

In the list, the world champion entering the match is printed in bold, even if he lost the match. In the first official entry, neither Steinitz nor Zukertort are in bold, since none of them entered the match as a world champion. I suggest to change that: print the winner of the match = subsequent world champion in bold - that seems to me to be simpler. Thanks to the people who worked on this page and did a very good job. --Herbmuell (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)