This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bengal, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.BengalWikipedia:WikiProject BengalTemplate:WikiProject BengalBengal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
The image of the final position of the first game, File:Liverpool Calcutta Chess Match Game A, 1880.png, is rather curious. After taking a look and failing to see why White would resign, I plugged it into an analysis board that tells me White is winning (+2.5). (Notice it is White's move as she is in check.) Chessgames reports that the game goes differently, ending in a draw in a slightly different position (look at the position after move 34 and apply 35.Be4 Rxe4 36.Nxe4). Chessgames agrees that the match was 1.5–0.5, but after a draw and a win for a Liverpool (not the other way around). So did The Chess Monthly get it wrong? — Bilorv (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would only lead to more reader confusion. I think we need to get to the bottom of this one way or another. It's fairly easy (albeit takes a few minutes) to create a diagram of a chess position, like the ones at Immortal Game#Annotated game, so I can do that for chessgames' version of events if we think that is the genuine one. Otherwise we should leave The Chess Monthly's. Or possibly show both and note the contradiction without saying which is correct.
However, we should have some other source than chessgames if we are to do this, as it is user-generated content and therefore not a reliable source (though it is generally very accurate). They must've got their version of the game from one of the 20 or so sources they cite at the end of the page. — Bilorv (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
