User talk:Fredrickmichael
Welcome!
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, Fredrickmichael, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Re: Chess Titans
[edit](From the comment you posted on my talk page. I'm responding here instead of the IP address's talk page. Hope this will be clear enough and you find this!)
Hello,
Sorry for a slowish reply. I'm not sure how I can help you with the specifics of the content dispute you refer to, as I am no expert on computer chess or the chess algorithms (just tangentially interested on the subject as part of video gaming in general). I am also an administrator; I do not act as an authority on content disputes. However, I am familiar with the Wikipedia policies, so I hope I can shed some light on the reasons for the deletions, and what can be done to improve the article in a satisfactory manner.
Bubba73 removed the section on the article with the edit summary "undo these edits as unreferenced, non-encyclopedic, and WP:GAMEGUIDE". I agree with the assessment, but I think the topics you mentioned may be worth mentioning in the article (as is the case with many other things in this world). However, it is better if I explain some of our policies and guidelines first.
There are two key policies that are at play here; the "unreferenced" and the "non-encyclopedic, game guide" parts.
The "non-encyclopedic, game guide" part has to do with the most basic question of all: What Wikipedia really is? Or rather, what it is not? Simply put, Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopaedia; general-purpose encyclopaedias are meant to give easily accessible overviews of topics. The exact specifics of what that concept entails are, again, subject to debate and depend highly on the situation.
For example, being a Linux and Mac OS X user and not having any Windows computers at my disposal at the moment, I had not heard of Chess Titans. The article told me which versions of Windows the game is included with and what curious features of new Windows versions it supports. Not being any expert in computer chess, there's obviously no harm if the article would just answer the obvious question I'd ask - "OK, is it any good at chess?" - and the article tries to answer the question, though not in particularly spectacular manner. Compare this to, say, the article on Sjeng, one of the popular Linux and OS X engines: the article tells that the engine won in championships. This tells to me, as a non-expert in the subject, that the engine may have some positive qualities. Why - a professional's analysis on the engine would be an interesting read, of course, but still, feats like this speak for themselves.
And in similar vein, I believe, there would be no harm in describing if the engine is susceptible to certain types of chess strategies. But that material would have to be sourced - which leads to the second problem.
The "unreferenced" part relates to the fact that material in Wikipedia should have references - or at least have references for material that is going to be questioned and challenged. At very least (in my opinion) the material should be referenceable; there has to be an article in some sort of a reliable source that describes the concept, it just doesn't need to be marked in the articles right now. But that's just my opinion - some editors have stricter ideas on the necessity of sourcing statements. (This isn't as impractical as it sounds. Wikipedia has multiple viewpoints on how ferociously certain rules have to be enforced, because not all approaches are good in all situations.)
Now, as said above, there would be no harm in describing if an engine has flaws, if those assertions are sourced. For example, an article on a wholly hypothetical chess engine could state something like this: "According to a FIDE grandmaster and noted computer chess analyst Grant Chesh Masters, the Windows 8 Ultimate Edition Chess consistently fails to win on all difficulty settings if the human player's first move is 1. a3 [ref: Masters, G.C., "Subjecting popular desktop chess engines to a battery of the most typical anti-computer strategies", PLoS Computer Chess, January 2014]. Microsoft has stated that this problem will be fixed in Service Pack 1 in 2016 [ref: Official MSDN Windows Updates Blog: "Games in Windows 8 SP1: Upcoming bugfixes in Chess and Retro Reversi"]."
But note how the above example refers to a specific expert referring to a specific flaw, in an article published in a peer-reviewed journal (OK, yeah, a fictional one, but my point stands).
The most central Wikipedia policies that side with both of the topics discussed here are Verifiability and No original research - they both actually refer to the opposite sides of a same coin: Information which is quoted in Wikipedia must exist in an outside source. Wikipedia works by summarising and making more accessible the information that already exists in the "expert" sources as it is. Reliable sources are where everyone ideally should get their information, but a student or an interested amateur may not comprehend a highly technical article without first reading an accessible overview on the whole subject. That's the reason we have encyclopaedias.
After this longish introduction, let's consider how these rules apply to the Chess Titans case.
The article additions refer to Kasparov's comments on anti-computer chess strategies. The source of those comments isn't marked, but I'm sure it's possible to find the source for that quote; Kasparov has a lot to say about computer chess, I'm sure. But how am I, as a random non-expert observer, supposed to know if and how Kasparov's comments are directly applicable to Chess Titans in specific? This situation is what the "No original research" policy calls "synthesis of published material that advances a position"; "Kasparov says this and that, and Chess Titans seems to be an applicable case." If this sort of assertion is made in a Wikipedia article, the links between Kasparov's comments and how it applies to Chess Titans in particular should be extremely clear and unambiguous in that anyone could see the link. (e.g. "Kasparov said this and that. Another expert has analysed various chess engines and concluded Chess Titans falls exhibits behaviour X. Kasparov's theory is by definition directly applicable to programs exhibiting behaviour X. Ergo, pwned.") If not, it's better to have an external source that analyses Chess Titans and its weaknesses, where such research - and such statements - can happen; after that, Wikipedia can say something along the lines of "According to source X, Kasparov's comments on anti-computer strategy are applicable to Chess Titans".
Now, the winning strategy you developed may be much more problematic as a part of Wikipedia article. As mentioned, original research is something Wikipedia can't easily accept. Even something as inconspicuous as mentioning what established strategies Chess Titans would fare badly against would be original research ("If you use the Kindergarten Boardside Creep Opening, 1. a3, Windows 8 Ultimate Edition Chess totally loses its marbles!"), and would require a citation ("...don't believe me? G.C. Masters said so in an article"). If you come up with something on your own, it's better to think of alternate publication outlets first; there's bound to be places that love to dissect computer chess engines, or games in general, and see if they'd be interested on hearing about the finer points of Chess Titans flaws. Perhaps, if your contributions end up into an in-depth guide on the game, they would warrant an external link in the Wikipedia article. If they're published in a reputable source, you might want to make a reasonable request if the material might be included to the article. (There are always some issues of potential conflict of interest, but I don't think anyone minds if you refer to, say, your own peer-reviewed article. Ask around. People might agree.)
I didn't have time to review your comments on the talk page, I'm afraid - it's 2:56 AM as I'm writing this. I try to see to them tomorrow, earliest.
Finally, as a side note: Wikipedia has a tool for automatically generating chess position diagrams for articles - the {{Chess diagram}} template. (For good examples, see Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov - you can view the wiki markup through the Edit command). These diagrams are, in my opinion, much clearer for the readers than the software screenshots. There is also the issue that Wikipedia prefers free-to-use images, and cannot use screenshots of copyrighted software unless it is justified; If the intended effect can be accomplished, better, through free-to-use means (e.g. Wikipedia's chess diagram template), there may be no need to include a screenshot. (I'm afraid Wikipedia's stance on copyright is, by necessity, very complicated, because we try to undo the damage that the unnecessarily complex copyright laws caused in the first place. =)
If there are any unclear parts of the policy, feel free to ask. I hope I can be of help. The situation isn't that difficult, you just need to focus on accessibility of the information and how it can be verified - and how it fits the article as a whole. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)