Talk:Magnus Carlsen

Old talk

If anyone has any better ideas on how to format the sample game I just added, please feel free to mess around with it. I'm not aware of any particular conventions on Wikipedia for formatting chess games given with annotations. --Malathion 17:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can have a look at Category:Chess_games to see how some other people have done it. Additionally if you look at Immortal game at the bottoms there is a link to a .pgn of the game which is also described in the article. The link is to upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia which is I think diffrent form how files that get directly upladed here work. I have been investigating this in spare moments to try and figure out if you have to use wikicommons or can use wiki[edia directly for this. When I get it figured out I think I am going to add pgn files for all the atricles in that category, and possibly also for Category:Chess_openings where approprate. Dalf | Talk 20:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categorys

If it is a wikipedia convention that articles should not be in a category and a sub-category then:

• I would like to see where this polocy is discussed (FOUND)

From Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories_applied_to_articles_on_people

But sometimes there's a good reason to assign an article to two categories, one of which is a direct or indirect subcategory of another. For a well-argued case study, see John Lennon.

• Most of wikipedia needs changing including -

1. Entries for all of the states in the U.S.A. (ex. Missouri is in Category: missouri as well as Category: U.S. States though Category: Missouri is a sub-category of the latter.
2. Category: Chess is another example (though not as good as someone did think to remove several categories which I put back. I mention it because there is relavent discussion on the talk page.)
3. More too come

The problem is some times a article should be visible from both levels. For example Category: Chess is a sub category of multiple others even ones that are in the same tree because people expcet to see Chess in Category: Board games. Dalf | Talk 23:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reorganise Chronologically

I think the "Biography" section of the article should be reorganised chronologically. The problem is that it is a very POV judgement over what is a "major" achievement. I suggest:

• Preface the chronology (or perhaps in the lead section) summarise his most important results (which to my mind are becoming a GM so young, qualifying the Candidates, and his Linaraes 2007 result).
• Than put ALL results chronologically in the biography section.

Peter Ballard 09:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of annotations

Isn't Carlsen's notes to the sample game in this article subject to copyright? Or has someone got the author's permission the reproduce them here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dersen (talk • contribs) 21:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Playing style

Do you know anything about his playing style? I think this should also be added on this page. I only know that he knows the theory very well and plays a big variety of different openings. I think I've read this in the interview wich was also mentioned in "external links". And then I think another thing should be improved: "The match was closely fought, Agdestein won the first game, Carlsen won the second, so the match went into a phase of two and two rapid games until there was a winner. Carlsen won the first rapid game, Agdestein the second. Then followed a series of three draws until Agdestein won the championship title with a victory in the sixth rapid game." Don't you think that this sounds a bit repetitiv? I didn't change it because I want to leave that to a native english speaker in order to avoid adding another error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.116.194 (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We tend to avoid "style" sections since these usually constitute original research. Best, ⟳ausa کui ^× 22:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, if his playing style has been extensively covered in 3rd party sources then it is easily included, just like our sportsperson articles. SGGH ^ping! 10:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the commentary on his playing style is incorrect and somewhat misinterprets Kasparov's comments. Firstly, Kasparov does liken him to Karpov and Smyslov but at no point says his style is unlike Fischer's. In fact his style is often liken to Fischer's because of its very simple and classical approach - Anand is one of many to make this observation. Secondly whlst Kasparov says some players are more aggressive and others more defensive, he does not actaully say that Carlsen is a defensive player. He does say Carslen is less aggressive than himself but then Kasparov was one of the most aggressive players of the modern era and certainly the most aggressive world champion of the modern era, so this really deos not imply Carlsen is defensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.93.173 (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've now deleted the reference to Fischer for the second time. Adpete (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It feels weird reading that Carlsen disagrees with Kasparov's opinion, who used to be his coach, on his playing style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britghwigh (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Date

The first paragraph in the article has "Friday september 26 2008," Which can't be correct. I don't know what the correct date is (otherwise I would correct it). But also, "Friday" needs to be taken out, September needs to be caps, there needs to be a comma after the date, and the sentence needs a period. Bubba73 (talk), 15:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Original sentence: "Friday september 26 2008, he become historic when he, during the Bilbao turnament took the 1 place on the unoffical rating lists on LiveChessRating.org" I made a lot of changes to the sentence, but I don't know the correct date. Bubba73 (talk), 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think the live ratings are unofficial and so do not belong in the lead. Since the live ratings have only been in existence for a few months, how can he have "made history"? Peter Ballard (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. If he is the top of the official list, that will be historic. Bubba73 (talk), 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I created an internal link to Elo rating system#Live ratings and pointed to there. Whether we like it or not, Live ratings are creating interest so we need to refer to them. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-English Characters

Forgive me since I'm (relatively) new, but shouldn't we have a transliteration of his name since it contains non-English characters? Chaotic42 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

First, apologies for the anonymous comment. I know that this subject comes up fairly often and I believe there is some debate around it. I agree with Chaotic42. While Magnus Carlsen's Norwegian name contains a non-English character which is a valid character in Norwegian, his English name (for an English article) should be spelled with the English alphabet. After all, his Chinese name is spelled with Chinese characters. Like Norwegian and Chinese, Norwegian and English are two different languages with two distinct alphabets. It is my opinion that the Norwegian spelling of his name should only appear once, in something like "Magnus Carlsen (Norwegian: ... ...)" at the beginning of the article, in order to avoid forcing English-speaking readers to repeatedly encounter the same words written in foreign characters throughout the article. For examples, check out pages written about people of Japanese origin. The Japanese writing is given once, at the beginning, and the English transliteration is used in the remainder. It is always a bit perplexing to me that this debate occurs with languages whose alphabets are similar to English; it poses no confusion with Japanese or Chinese subjects. Cheers :) 97.115.39.159 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this about the Øen bit of his name? That "Ø" is the only non-English character I can see (unless there are others I am missing). Can that character be transliterated? I'd also ask how it is pronounced. Most biographies have a bit saying how a name is pronounced, so someone will have fun at some point trying to work that one out. I would suggest asking in places like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway. Carcharoth (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To the IP: I do not see the problem really, as the Ø only appears in the lede sentence and in the infobox, and nowhere else in the article. Therefore, English speakers do not really "repeatedly encounter the [foreign characters]" in this case. He is typically just referred to as "Magnus Carlsen", both in English and Norwegian sources. decltype (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the anonymous comment (maybe it's time for me to get a username :) ). I'm thinking what I see a problem with, as far as the info box is concerned, is that Carlsen's Norwegian name appears not in addition to but instead of his English name. The info box is meant for quick reference; the native writing of his name might helpfully be offered there for reference (much like Kanji is often written below the Roman spelling of Japanese subjects' names in their info boxes), but his English name should be at the top. In the main text of the article, the native spelling of his name should be given as an aside (e.g. in parentheses) at the beginning of the article; it is confusing for non-English characters to appear in the regular text unless they are the focus of that particular sentence or paragraph. I am not trying to be unfair to speakers of Norwegian, and I understand that it is common for many Norwegians who are of course quite fluent in English to use "Ø" with no problem in Norwegian names in the middle of English sentences; I just feel that since this is an English Wikipedia article, the main text should stay in English for consistency, professionalism and readability. This is particularly important from the standpoint of many English-speaking communities outside Norway who may not be familiar with the character. I do see other articles with similar such issues, and if anyone knows of any existing discussions of this type or precedents for this situation on Wikipedia, it would be much appreciated if you could point us to those for reference. Thanks :) 97.115.45.208 (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for help here. There is also Wikipedia:Reference Desk which has a language section. For Manual of Style stuff, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I think you want something like Wikipedia:Proper names, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). There are language style guides for languages like Chinese and Japanese, but I can't find one for Nordic languages. Ah, we also have Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign terms. Possibly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Modified letters is also relevant. You might be better off asking at the talk page of the manual of style: WT:MOS. If you need help creating an account, and for some of the things to consider, see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Carcharoth (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer is simple; you don't transliterate the Norwegian alphabet, since it uses (unlike Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Greek etc) the same Latin alphabet as English does. The comparison with Chinese is far-fetched. As for professionalism, writing æ, ø, å is the only way to represent the real world, in other words we don't make up names (ø is sometimes written "oe", which in this case would render "Oeen", a made-up name which has no basis in the real world). Geschichte (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I second Geschichte's statement. Æ, Ø, Å needs no transliteration. Nordic languages and Chinese isn't comparable, by a very long shot. Manxruler (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'll third it. Perhaps it might be worth a discussion if the fellow were known as Øen Carlsen, but he's not. (As to pronunciation, I usually say that Ø is similar to 'i' in bird. The Norwegian written languages have nine vowels: A E I - O U Y - Æ Ø Å.) - Hordaland (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound self-centered, but if Norwegian uses the same alphabet as English, and English is my native language, then why can't I read it? :) That's my point here. I know Norwegian speakers can take these characters for granted, but as a member of a Non-Norwegian English-speaking community, I can't be expected to know how to read them when I encounter them in English Wikipedia. So I would argue that yes, they do need transliterations. After all, they are characters that we really, truly, can't read. I promise! :)

I infer from the fact that, so far, our Norwegian users all seem to opine that this issue is trivial, that our "real worlds," as you put it, may be slightly different. But try to imagine what it would be like if you didn't speak the language in question. For example, Ichiro Suzuki's "real" name isn't "Ichiro Suzuki;" it's "鈴木一朗." But your average English speaker can't read that; therefore we give the "real" spelling of his name once, at the beginning of the article, and thereafter use an English transliteration, "Ichiro Suzuki." I understand that many Norwegian speakers may consider it trivial, but as a non-Norwegian speaker, I can't read the symbols "Æ, Ø, Å" any more than a non-Japanese speaker could read "鈴木一朗" (although thanks to Hordaland's comment, I now know how to pronounce "Ø" :) ).

I guess I'm not completely understanding your opinion. Why do you consider the non-English characters in the Norwegian alphabet so different from the non-English characters in Japanese or Chinese?

At the end of the day, I suppose it looks like we may need a style manual for Nordic names, though. 97.115.31.36 (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any combination of the letters A through Z that would come close when pronounced at that position in a word by an English speaker, so I do not see how it is supposed to be transliterated. Although the 'i' in bird is similar to ø, one can not transliterate Øen with Ien, as that 'i' sounds completely different. In my opinion, it is better that people realize that the name contains something they can not pronounce, than get the impression they know how to pronounce it, but get it wrong. At least when dealing with such closely related languages. Both also use the Latin alphabet, not some wholly alien alphabet. Ters (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the letters "kj" written together (cf Kjell Magne Bondevik etc), no non-Norwegian speakers know that they represent the voiceless palatal fricative, should this be transliterated as well? Besides, as Ters says it is the same alphabet. English language does even use these characters - for instance Æ is found in the word Encyclopædia Britannica! Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One way of solving this whole pronunciation "problem" would be if a native Norwegian speaker were to make a sound file of Carlsen's name, upload it to Commons, and add it to the article. Although, AFAIK, the standard way of doing that is to make a sound file of the article's name, and Øen isn't in the article name. User:Houshuang used to create and upload such files, but as I said, why on earth would we have an ogg file that included the pronunciation of Øen when Øen isn't in the article name. This is quite a pointless discussion, as there is no actual problem. Manxruler (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why this couldn't be done for his birth name, even if it isn't in the article's title, like for instance in the Gothenburg and Copenhagen articles. decltype (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Then there's the solution to the "problem". Manxruler (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Think of his middle name as "Owen" :) JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Who was the 2nd youngest fide number 1

If Magnus Carlsen is the youngest fide number 1 then who was the 2nd youngest fide number 1? Who was the 3rd, 4th, 5th 6th 7th … youngest fide number 1? Mschribr (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a draft article in my userspace that answers just that question! :-) See here. It turns out there have only been seven FIDE number ones since the FIDE rating lists started. If anyone wants to try and work out who could have been considered "number one" in the earlier periods, and how old they were, they could try... (the article in the see also section of that draft article, Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history, covers some of that sort of thing). Carcharoth (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's nice. Because I'd like to see that question answered as well. --bender235 (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth for creating a page. It would be easier to see the list of youngest fide number ones in a table, sorted by age and year. I also saw Kasparov was 21 when be became number one in the summer of 1984. See www.kasparovagent.com/garry_kasparov_biography.php

Fide Number 1

Player	Age	Year
Carlsen	19	2010
Kramnik	20	1995
Kasparov	21	1984
Karpov	24	1975
Fischer	28	1971
Topalov	31	2006
Anand	37	2006

Mschribr (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I need to move that page into article space so people feel freer to edit it. :-) I was trying to find a source for when Kasparov became number one. I guess the sources differ. Discrepancies may be because people are going by publication dates, not the date of the rating period in question. I'll go and move the page now - hopefully someone will turn it into a proper table as well, and Mschribr can add the table above (with the source he gave as well). Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Now active at List of FIDE chess world number ones. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

World ranking caveat

Seems an ongoing error to the use of raking and rating claims without given them the necessary framework to supports the data. The issue is the world raking and such like are all based on data which have the caveat of active players. This wiki article attempts to use the data as absolute. There is a certain Mr Kaspasrov who at 2812, is currently the world's highest rated players. SunCreator (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who notice the sentence above is littered with inconsistencies and typoes, the 1812 they mention is ACTUALLY supposed to be 2812...Carlsen's is only 2 points below but he's still second to Kasparov. Ratings don't mean much until Kasparov plays Carlsen though :-) 78.86.230.62 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but we are reporting what the news media are saying this is. And Kasparov is retired (if he came out of retirement, that would be some story). Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked on the FIDE website, and Kasparov is indeed still listed with a rating of 2812, but with last game played in 2005. Because his entry has the "inactive" flag on it, he doesn't appear in the published lists. Not sure where this sort of thing should be mentioned. Something similar happened with Fischer appearing top of the lists in the 1990s, before they introduced the idea of 'database flags' for inactive and active players, to separate them out. As for Carlsen and Kasp playing each other, they do play blitz in training sessions, and there was a report somewhere of who wins those sessions, but I've forgotten which one of them wins more (I would guess Carlsen). Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Is he a chess pro?

Maybe this is taken for granted, but is he a chess professional? There is nothing in the article about whether he will be attending university to pursue any career other that chess. I assume he is someone who should have no trouble making a living at chess, but nontheless it seems the article should mention this. BashBrannigan (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Chess "professionals" are not regulated by any world body other than FIDE, and even then, it's a take-it or leave-it situation. Plenty of good chessplayers ignore FIDE rankings altogether, and go solo. Look at how Bobby Fischer didn't give a flying f* what FIDE thought about him. And for what it's worth, making money does not turn you into a "professional" any more than losing money turns you into a chump. The Chess World, whatever it is, ignores the rules in place for other sports like football or boxing. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying makes sense, but I'm not sure it's what I meant. Many grandmasters, even great ones, still get an education and it is mentioned in the Wikipedia article. For example the Anand article says "Anand did his schooling in Don Bosco, Egmore, Chennai and holds a degree in commerce from Loyola College, Chennai". BashBrannigan (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why he has to choose between chess professionally and a career? He could easily do both and just take time off from his normal work to take part in tournaments, or not even work at all if he wishes to live off what he can earn from chess 78.86.230.62 (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I must not be explaining myself very well. I'm simply saying it should be included in the article. Not everyone who'll visit the article is a chess player. His education would provide background. I briefly googled it and I would have added it in myself, but I found nothing. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He has a company, Magnuschess AS, which has 4 employees. He added earnings of 1.8 million Norwegian crowns to it in 2007, or so it says here. The press discusses which international sponsors he may or should accept. I can't find anything about whether he intends to study another subject, but he certainly won't have to. Here his father says he reckons that his son will have enough money for the rest of his life before he is 25. And here it says that the earnings for 2009 won't be high, as trainer Garry Kasparov (46) is expensive. As to formal education so far, he went to an athletic high school, The Norwegian College of Elite Sport (Norges Toppidrettsgymnas/NTG), where his chess coach was Simen Agdestein. (I haven't read the article, so all this may already be in there.) - Hordaland (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for that! Very interesting. Should be in the article somewhere, plus a mention of his current sponsors (Arctic Securities, I think). It is noticeable that the jackets he wears have the sponsor's names on them. There is a photo I took at the London Chess Classic, which is on Commons, but I haven't put it in any article yet. Carcharoth (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant! Background like that would be greatly enhance the article. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical time control?

The main page of this article could be improved by citing the actual time control, and not just pass it off as a "classical" time control. Is the primary time control 40 moves in 2 hours? Is there a secondary time control of 20 moves in 1 hour? Does he have someone doing his notations for him, or does he have to waste time by writing the moves down?

I'd think a primary time control of 12 moves in 2 hours, and a secondary time control of 10 moves in 1 hour, is sufficiently leisurely that a high quality game can be produced. As it is, there has been so much over-analysis of chess openings, most good chess masters have memorized the "book" up to 25 moves anyway. It's not like rushing them into following the book, is going to make them play any better than letting them sit and ponder their moves for a while. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Youngest to break Elo barriers

Magnus broke the 2600 Elo barrier, whit 2625 at the age of 15 and 31 days. And Wesley so, who now hold the record, broke it at 14, 9 days shy of 15 years old. I think it safe to say that Carlsen was the previous holder of the record. It would be nice that it was mentioning in the article some were in the 2006 sections. I will make a draft be i would like someone more experience in literature to correct me afterwords.

I also think he is the current holder of the record for the youngest to reach the 2700 Elo barrier. Right now were in the stage of prodigy so it highly unprobable that someone broke it before Carlsen and before the year 2000. And well i have check all the major prodigy and not one was younger then when Carlsen broke that barrier. Plz give me feedback on wat you guys think.GSP-Rush (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

He's not, Sergey Karjakin bettered him. SunCreator (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not even close in both for 2600 Sergey got it at 15 and 3 month, Carlsen was 15 and 1 months. And for the 2700 ther more then a year apart. Sergey at 18 years old finally got it. Magnus got it at 16 and 7 months.GSP-Rush (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Carlsen was younger in all those ratings. Although Karjakin was still 17 when he got to 2700. I wouldn't bother checking for others though, you are doing WP:OR and also you'll not be able to reference a statement. So use whatever is available in sources already. SunCreator (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well actually Sergey was 18. Note he turned 20 on January 2010 and he made it passed the 2700 (2732) rating on January 2008. Also if you want me to make a reference i don't realy know how i can do that. Since you seem to understand more WP:OR protocol can you help me make it work.GSP-Rush (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Karjakin's birthday is January 12th, the FIDE ratings come out before, maybe 1st of January officially, his wikipedia page was edited to include new 2700 FIDE rating before that day. On 1st of January he had not yet had his 18th birthday. Anyway all this stuff it's easy to make errors. The thing with WP:OR is Wikipedia does not publish original thought, so no calculations or anything you have to make out but instead find a reliable source about the subject matter you wish to include in the article. If there is no reliable source then don't add it. SunCreator (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Civil worker

Re: Agdestein introduced his civil worker Torbjørn Ringdal Hansen, currently an International Master, to Carlsen,... Probably what is meant is a conscientious objector doing civilian service, but was Agdestein en employer who had such a person? Needs to be checked.--Mycomp (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Carlsen vs. The World

What about this? --173.3.154.230 (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be included in the article. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 01:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Carlsen in interviews

Carlsen is often pretty ironic. Talking to Carlsen people often want him to say things they usually associate with celebrities. So Carlsen is sometimes at a loss, because on the one hand he is very natural, never saying spectacular things intended to build up kind of a myth. On the other hand he doesn't want to be unpolite. On such occasions he just smiles and says - virtually nothing, and by no means the answer the interviewer want's to get out of him by his suggestive question. -- Rolandor (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Magnus Carlsen and Bobby Fischer

Carlsen is often compared with Bobby Fischer and as for excellence in chess I hope he will become like Fischer. But despite him dropping out of the Candidates Tournament - the final will be in May 2011, which is very regrettable, he is not and will never be as eccentric as Fischer.

From an interview with the Guardian (the answers are from Carlsen, it is not very difficult to recognize the admiration in his first and the irony in his second answer):

"Paul Morphy or Bobby Fischer?"

   "Fischer, for sure. Morphy was way ahead of his time but Fischer was masterful."

"And a little mad ..."

   "I'm not yet as crazy as he was but I'll get there." 

-- Rolandor (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the three-point scoring at the London Chess Classic

I think that the tournament was a great occasion, but the scoring rules are questionable. In short - appropriate for football, but not for chess. Nevertheless one should point out that Carlsen had the most difficult draw having to play more games with black, in particular with black against McShane, Anand, and Kramnik, which is definitely an disadvantage, while McShane and Anand had only three games with black. So I made a point of commenting that Carlsen would have been the winner anyway. This is due to the tiebreaker rules saying that from two player with equal points the one with more games with black will be placed better.

-- Rolandor (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nanjing 2009 performance

Stop citing that 2850 figure - it was 3002. Look at how Sonas arrived at 2850, it has literally nothing to do with FIDE's calculation of performance ratings. He takes FIDE ratings, puts them down by 29 points without explaining why (calculation "inflation" between the 2005 Chessmetrics list and the 2009 FIDE list is impossible anyway as CM and Elo use different methods to calculate ratings - and even different rankings) and then applies to those lowered by 29 FIDE ratings the Chessmetrics formula. In short: the way he arrived at 2850 is an ugly hybrid of Elo (lowered by 29) and Chessmetrics, justified by nothing. While 3002 is a correct calculation based on Elo.--Alexmagnus2 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 3002 is the Elo performance and is the one we should use. I've fixed the reference. Adpete (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No chess set ?!

Can someone please help me out here?! ... I read somewhere that Magnus didn't have a chess set in his home (or more specifically, he thought there was one somewhere, but didn't know quite where it was). Okay then, is it just me, 'cause I'm wondering, how did he develop his strength? (Usually developing players study, right? And they study using a chess set. And Magnus ... has none?! I don't get it. Can someone please explain.)

How is this possible? (Does anyone know?) Okay I have thought about this ... If he has no chess set, or didn't have when he developed his strength to become a notable competitor, then ... geez, the only thing I could/can think of, is that he did all his studying, all his playing, all his skill-development ... sitting in front of a computer screen. (!?)

(Is that the fact? Why can't I find this info anywhere? I've tried. No info.)

If I'm right and he *did* grow his playing skill using computer "chess set" only, then, ... wouldn't that be rather unique in chess history? (For a player of this caliber, to grow his skill, without a real, physical set!?) And that said, wouldn't it be a significant fact, a "first-ever", to report in his WP BLP?!

I'm just theorizing now. Because I still don't know how he did it. (No online doc I can find, as mentioned.)

Please someone, let me know! Because I feel totally stupid about it, there is no online info about it I can find, and it seems totally puzzling to me. (Am I the only one!?)

Thanks so much. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I read that interview a couple of years ago. He said that he wasn't sure if he had a chess set, but said there might be one around somewhere. He must do everything on the computer. I probably read the article in a link from the Susan Polgar blog, http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well it's here too: [[1]]

I'm glad you think also, he did everything on computer, because I reached the same conclusion, and I was wondering if I was mad or not. Well now ... if that's true (developed his strength by computer screen only), duh, wouldn't that be a "world's first" - a "never before happened" kind of event? I think so. (Maybe others will know more definitively.) Surely, if true, it belongs in the BLP, or maybe in the Guiness Book of World's Records, or somewhere. It's a total change. Totally different. Never happened before. It's *got* to be significant, as a fact. (Why not anywhere online? Why not in this BLP? Again, I think it's gotta be a most significant thing. First ever. Never-before-in-the-history-of-chess type of thing. A significant commentary on the use of computers too. [Or more specifically, computer screens.] Because you cannot touch the pieces when you play on a computer screen. You can only "look". When you touch a piece, the nerve impulses end up in the brain. You "think" according to the established networks in your brain. Which *have* to be different, if you accumulated your skill visually, without touch, but visual only. The pathways in the brain cannot be the same.)

I really think this is some kind of significant. (Am I nuts?!?) Why is this totally not discussed or explored?! What top-level chessplayer ever did this? None I bet. Does it matter? I think it's tremendously significant. (For example, does Magnus own a chess set at home *today*?! My guess is, he does. [Why? Because he plays in top-level competitions, and has pressure to do well, and those competitions use real, physical sets. If he prepared for those events totally using a computer screen still, I would be very surprised. But I'm already very surprised, he developed his skill initially, only having a computer "set"!])

To me this is incredibly fascinating and significant. In chess arena, psychology, theories on learning and praxis, the influence of computers in real life, etc., etc. (A PhD thesis-potential at least. Or a special on NOVA. Whatever. But not a murmur anywhere [apparently]!)

Can't this at least be investigated sufficiently to include the *fact* in this BLP? (Because, isn't it a "first" for chess!? My guess is that it is. But are there really facts here, or only guesses?! Are we guessing? [Because as stated, there is no online doc. We are only filling in the blanks logically. How did he develop his awesome skill? Looking at a computer screen only? Amazing. But where is the fact? No where. I find it amazing [both no positive on it, and if true, the actual fact].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that he doesn't use a real set should be in the article. This is probably common today. At the last tournament I played in (about four years ago), I played a pretty good young player. He said that he usually used a computer and he was not used to playing with a real set. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Common, but, Magnus is himself not common at all ("Mozart" of chess - maybe the world's top chess genius). And he grew his skill majorly, by computer screen only?! And transitioned into serious tournament competitions with real sets?! The pathways in the brain have to be different. (You can't learn to play the violin, by witnssing a series of videos, for a poor but somewhat valid e.g.) I can't imagine, he *still* continues to "not use a real set" in preparation. But it is still amazing, he grew his strength and achieved his notability, without a real set. (I don't think this has ever happened before in the history of chess. Why has this been ignored? It's fascinating. Can visual learning be superior to touch? But how well or how easily does visual learning translate to a praxis environment which is touch? [Did you beat that opponent? Was he explaining why he didn't do so well in your game with him? Or?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It may become the norm for tournaments to be played on computers - they keep the scoresheet and keep precise track of the clock. And if that happens, it may happen that tournaments are conducted remotely (but then how is cheating controlled?) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

But there isn't even a suggestion of things going in that direction today, albeit computers/Internet have been around for decades! (In all serious abstract strategygame competitions - no matter it's chess, Backgammon, checkers, Shogi, Xiangqi, Othello, etc. - you still check into a hotel, find the tournament room, and face your opponent mano-a-mano across a table and a physycal set with pieces!) You must be talking 50 years into the future! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

At one recent tournament (Amber, I think) the blitz games were played on computer monitors. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's just a guess, but I wonder if Magnus, who grew his awesome strength without a physical set, would prefer even today to play his serious matches by computer (but that chess culture dictates otherwise)!? (If I could interview Magnus, I'd love to ask him, if he feels the quality of his play using real sets, is identical as when he plays by computer sreen. And if there's a difference, what is it? And what aspects does he feel causes the difference? I think the answers might be fascinating, I have no idea why the Qs haven't been investigated.) Anyway, there isn't the slightest mention of this whole topic in the BLP – is it because there's so little info available on it? I think the fact he used computer-only to grow his awesome strength makes a striking difference with any other GM, and says something about the influence of computers on and in human lives generally (though of course that's beyond scope of the article). Do we have enough with the Time's link above to include something? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a good enough reference to say that he isn't sure if he has a real set (therefore must use the computer). (I could give a photo of the Amber tournament of them using computers, but it would be a copyright violation.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I put the fact in the BLP at least, in section "2009" (the time of the interview). There's a "Playing style" section, I wish there were a "Training/Study method" section instead, but I won't be creating one. But the big point I really wanted to include, that he's the first-and-only GM who grew his stength without a chess set, I can't, because there is no RS for that. (I can't imagine there is, or has ever been, another SuperGM who did that, can you!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know - there could be. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Proseline

Much of the narrative in this article is proseline, as we've filled in the details in his career month by month. Well, he's been around for awhile now and isn't just a child prodigy anymore. Is it possible that we can condense these details into a more encyclopedic narrative? causa sui (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be done. He is probably going to have a long career and I don't think the article needs that level of detail. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There's excess of detail due to the tournament results. Most of them could be removed from the body text and put to a table like I did in fi:Magnus Carlsen. --Jisis (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that much of the information should be condensed, but doing so is hard work because it involves trimming away information that is, after all, verifiable. In such a "surgical" process, one needs to avoid trimming away the essentials while removing the excess details. Some things struck me as a bit over the top when they were added (in good faith I might add), for example naming the openings played in individual games is something that interests chess players intent on studying opening theory, but it does bloat the article and is probably of no interest to someone who wants a biography instead of a theory tome. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Rating update

Calrsen is as of now the best chess player in history. Please update the page, since it's locked. --Nikola Kotur (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not an official FIDE rating. Moreover, "best chess player in history" is contrary to WP:NPV and disputed by many. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable games

I think we should have a "Notable games" section in this article (preferably consisting of links to chessgames.com), even though it may be difficult to choose just a few games in the case of a player with so many outstanding creations. What do others suggest? Toccata quarta (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

For me I agree. And it seems there could be one game presented in the article too, perhaps there's one Carlsen is particularly proud of as a "best game", or one that was key to a critical tmt victory, or whatever, that makes the game stand out or special. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting really irritated by the amount of games to choose from: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1593808, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1628232, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1544430, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1649097, and the list goes on. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a problem. Here he's 16, and beats Topalov, World No. 1!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I put something together. It's sketchy, and can be argued about, but at least it's something. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the games included in this section should be sourced to indicate why they are considered notable, otherwise it looks too much like original research. I have back issues of New in Chess that include tournament reports where Carlsen often annotates and declares a certain game his favorite of the tournament or similar. Will hunt through these and add a few. Sasata (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The game with Kasparov is well-known, the win over Topalov was annotated by Carlsen in one chess magazine, and the win over Gelfand got an award in one Russian chess magazine. I don't know about the other two games. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The win over Topalov was annotated by Carlsen in NIC 2009/4. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks – I added a reason for that game's notability. Sasata (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Autism

In a question and answer session with readers of Norwegian newspaper "Nettavisen", Carlsen was asked "Are you autistic?" and replied "Yes, isn't that pretty obvious?" (Norwegian: "Er du autist?" - "Ja, er ikke det ganske åpenbart?"). I'm afraid I don't have an English language source (The original is at http://www.nettavisen.no/sjakk/article1599185.ece ) but surely this is rather relevant to a biography? SaikoGuy (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If true, that's amazing. (And I think would explain everything!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Don´t think this should be included in the article. The answer from Carlsen is not enough to establish that he has a medical condition and Wikipedia shouldn´t fuel speculations on such issues. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the answer from Carlsen is not enough to establish that he is autistic, but it is enough to establish that he describes himself as autistic. Or that he was asked, and answered in the affirmative.SaikoGuy (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have ever seen a true autist, you will know Carlsen is not one; at "worst", he has high-functioning autism. Having just said that, it's worth noting that MOS:BIO establishes no policy on this. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I've worked extensively with with people on the Autistic spectrum from one end to the other. But my opinion and yours are both irrelevant, since this is Wikipedia and it has guidelines. The sourceable information is that Carlsen was asked in a question and answer session and answered in the affirmative.SaikoGuy (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think he said that he has Asperger syndrome, which is a form of autism. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that this should be added, if the source is reliable (as it seems to be). @Iselija: Carlsen actually is a reliable source for his own person (barring "exceptional" or "unduly self-serving" claims), by the guideline WP:ABOUTSELF. And it's not "speculation" if he himself explicitly confirms it and even calls it "obvious". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The answer may easily have been tongue-in-cheek. Carlsen says that it's "obvious"; as somebody who has seen many autists, I can assure you that there is nothing "obvious" about his "autism" (unless you allow for no deviations from the "average person").

For a bit of context (to see that Carlsen is willing to make "heavy" jokes in interviews), here's a passage from an interview with Carlsen published in The Guardian:

• Paul Morphy or Bobby Fischer? Fischer, for sure. Morphy was way ahead of his time but Fischer was masterful.

• And a little mad ... I'm not yet as crazy as he was but I'll get there. [Emphasis in original] ([2])

There you go. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 December 2012

Carlsen's highest rating is 2861 since the 2012 london chess challenge and it is the highest rating in history 66.131.179.2 (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Realible sources are not the issue here—what matters is that the information is not official. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources

The sentence "Agdestein said that Carlsen had an excellent memory and played an unusually wide range of different openings." is unsourced. I found this, but it does not appear to come from 2004.

"After the tournament, Carlsen played a private 40-game blitz match against Hikaru Nakamura. It was later revealed that Carlsen won it 23½–16½." I have come across one site citing a different result. Could somebody please clarify this? Thanks. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the original source for the Adgestein quote. The Chess mind site reports the score incorrectly. Sasata (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there some reason why you changed "The Mozart of Chess" into "Mega Magnus in Wijk aan Zee"? Strictly speaking, the article has two titles, but I think the name of the page is the one we should use. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Could go either way I guess; the latter is the title the actual author of the article (Mathias Berntsen) gave it, the former looks like a "cute" title given by Friedel. Maybe we should give both: "The Mozart of Chess: Mega Magnus in Wijk aan Zee"? Sasata (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea! I have done just that. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the following passages have sourcing problems:

• "The victory clinched Carlsen a place in the 2011 Grand Slam Chess Masters final"

Removed. Sasata (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• "As he matured, Carlsen found that this risky playing style was not as well suited against the world elite. Around 2007 Carlsen was struggling against top players, and had trouble getting much out of the opening. To progress, Carlsen became a more universal player, capable of handling all sorts of positions well."

I think I can source this properly, but will have to dig around. Sasata (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have gone through this article's history and found the original reference for this passage:

• <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/article401031.ece|title=Magnus Carlsens system|last=Grønn|first=Atle|date=27 February 2009|publisher=Dagsavisen|language=Norwegian|accessdate=29 November 2010}}</ref>

Unfortunately, the web page in question is dead. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that helps – Wayback machine is our friend! I've reinstated the source with an archived url. Sasata (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This passage is indeed sourced, but with a primary source. We should use a secondary source.

• "In the January 2006 FIDE list, at the age of 15 years, 32 days, he attained a 2625 Elo rating, which made Carlsen the youngest person to break the 2600 Elo barrier. In October of 2008, Wesley So broke that record."

This passage was unsourced for a long time, and then a source got added to it. However, I removed it, as blogs are not considered reliable source. It may be difficult to obtain a high-quality source for this statement. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be possible to source the FIDE ID page that has his birthdate, and the rating page for October 2008, but perhaps that's veering too closely towards WP:Synthesis? For now, I just removed the statement, as it isn't crucial information for this article. Sasata (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not illicit synthesis, since this article already has his date of birth. However, the whole quote above was unsourced, not just the passage about Wesley So. I think I'll remove it, if there is no reliable source for the "youngest person to break the 2600 Elo barrier" claim. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've commented out this statement for now, as I think I can find a source for it later. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Kramnik quote

• "In a 2012 interview, Vladimir Kramnik attributed much of Carlsen's success against other top players to his 'excellent physical shape' and his ability to avoid 'psychological lapses', which enables him to maintain a high standard of play over long games and at the end of tournaments, when the energy levels of others have dropped."

I removed "against other top players" from this sentence, since, even though Kramnik may have formulated it like that, it makes no difference, in my opinion; such psychological and physical stability gives one an advantage over chess players of all levels. What do others think? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• The point is, his pure chess ability is enough to win against other lesser players; Kramnik is explaining what give Carlsen the edge against other top players (e.g. 2700+). I think the distinction is important, and we shouldn't be adjusting his ideas and misrepresenting the source just to trim a few words from the text. Sasata (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Carlsen as a celebrity

Carlsen appears to be developing into one of the biggest celebrities in chess history; I've just discovered that he recently received the attention of a blog post by Franca Sozzani here. If we ignore the lack of sources for this claim, WP claims that "She is considered to be one of the five most influential people in the fashion industry woldwide." Not bad. ;) I'm sure many of you are also familiar with the interviews with him by people from the world of finances.

However, I notice that his appearances on The Colbert Report and 60 Minutes are not mentioned in this article. I'm convinced that at least those two should make it into the "Beyond chess" section. What do others think? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree! I debated whether to mention that he beat Colbert 2–0 at rock paper scissors, but perhaps that's a bit too trivial :-) Sasata (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Year off school

I was asked to provide a source for the following sentence from the article, using my copy of Wonderboy (Agdestein, 2004):

"Becoming an International Master, Carlsen was given a year off from elementary school to participate in international chess tournaments during the fall season of 2003."

The details are on page 104 in the 2004 New In Chess paperback edition ISBN 90-5691-131-7. I'm putting the details here, as it is slightly different to what is currently stated in the sentence, so the sentence will need rewriting:

• Rather than a year off elementary school, what is said is that: "The Carlsens had long dreamed of a year off from school and work, just travelling. When Magnus finished primary school and was about to start at a new secondary, the time had come. [...] In July they rented out their house. [followed by summer at the family cabin in Kjerringberget in Larvik.] The trip to Europe began officially on Monday, 18 August 2003."
• Carlsen and the rest of the family (in various permutations) spent the time between then and Christmas travelling around Europe, with Carlsen participating in various tournaments. He already had the IM title (it was made official at the FIDE Presidential Board that took place two days after they left on the year-long trip). They spent Christmas back home in Norway with grandparents (the house was rented out until 1 July 2004). Carlsen (and his father) then resumed the travelling in 2004 and Carlsen got his first GM norm (January) then his second in Moscow with all the family (February). The final GM norm (again, with all the family) was attained in Dubai in April, described as the "last major journey of their sabbatical year".

After that, it became a bit of a media circus as Carlsen was, at the time, the world's youngest GM. Agdestein's book closes with a chapter on the Knockout World Championship in Tripoli. So what happened after that is not covered (Agdestein was writing the book in Tripoli and it was published soon afterwards). It is, though, made clear at various points that Carlsen and the other children (his sisters) did schoolwork during their sabbatical year. A comment was left higher up this talk page (see Is he a chess pro?) about what secondary school Carlsen went to, but I don't have a source for that, or how much time he spent at whatever secondary school he went to. Hopefully that is enough as far as the "year out" goes.

What might also be useful are his IM norm results: (i) First IM norm at the January 2003 Gausdal Troll Masters (7/10, 2345 TPR); (ii) Second IM norm at the June 2003 Salongernas IM-tournament in Stockholm (6/9, 2470 TPR); (iii) Third IM norm at the July 2003 Politiken Cup in Copenhagen (8/11, 2503 TPR). Those details are on page 190 of Agdestein's book. The FIDE website (essentially the primary source on this) has details of the award of both his IM and GM titles and the FIDE meetings at which they were ratified/awarded. It can be tricky to find that if you don't know where to look. The IM title details are here (Presidential Board, August 2003, Abuja, Nigeria). The GM title details are here (2nd quarter Presidential Board, July 2004, Tripoli, Libya), though annoyingly they only have one of the GM norm results online. Anyway, the details of how he got his IM norms and title should probably be added. Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much Carcharoth, this was very helpful! I've added these details, and will probably add more when I get my copy :-) Sasata (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I hadn't looked at the book in a while and got side-tracked leafing through it. The photographs are really quite good. It will be interesting to see what sort of approach is taken in the next biography (if there is one) and when, and whether there will be official and unofficial ones (certainly if there are no official ones forthcoming, someone will likely try and do an unofficial one). At the moment, the closest thing to a running commentary on his results (apart from the usual chess magazines and news sources) is Carlsen's blog, which has several years worth of material I think. I've never looked closely at how relatively high-profile BLPs are edited before (the closest is reading through various articles of the current leading tennis players), and I do have some misgivings about the whole concept of trying to write and maintain an article where the story is still ongoing and needs constant attention (not to mention that if/when a new biography is published, that would likely mean a big rewrite of the article). But I'm very happy to help out where needed. I'll be particularly interested to see how getting the right mix and balance of sources is handled. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Puzzling reference

• "Carlen, Magnus (2004). "Magnificent Magnus". New in Chess (2): 48–51."

"Carlen" should obviously be "Carlsen", but I wonder: was Carlsen really the author of that article? Toccata quarta (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the typo. Yes, other than the uncredited opening blurb (probably Geuzendam or Timman), and probably the title, the article was written by Carlsen. Sasata (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Photo: Carlsen in Bilbao 2008

Is this photo really adding value to the article ? I find the photo to be so messy and unclear that it is mostly a distraction, especially since the article has two other good photos of Carlsen playing chess in 2007 and 2008, and the article in general doesn´t have a lack of photos. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Magnus Carlsen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting any issues here that I can't easily fix myself, and then go to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for taking on the review. I'd like to bring this to FAC sometime this year, so don't be afraid to be nitpicky, or make suggestions for improvements that may extend beyond the GA criteria. Sasata (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

On my first pass, this looks very close to GA status--really excellent work. My comments are mostly nitpicks; the only issue I see that really matters by the GA criteria is the quotation in the final bullet point. I did some minor copyedits as I went, so please take a look to make sure I didn't accidentally introduce any new errors. One issue that I didn't quite resolve to my satisfaction is how "round robin" and "double round robin" should be hyphenated. The New York Times appears to spell it any which way, though, [3], so I think as long as it's internally consistent, it's okay.

• "with better tiebreaks scores" -- should this be "tiebreak scores"?

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Some names that recur frequently in this article (Anand, Polgar), could be reduced to only last name, instead of giving the full name with every mention. This isn't relevant to the GA criteria, though, just a side suggestion. One thing that seems more relevant to the "conciseness" criterion is giving the context of the players multiple times. For example, in the sentence "World Champion Viswanathan Anand, former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, American No. 1 Hikaru Nakamura, and British players Michael Adams, Nigel Short, David Howell, and Luke McShane", Kramnik has already been mentioned 14 times in the article, and his background as former world champ established. Anand is mentioned as World Champion many times as well--though it may be worth making it clear that he still held the title at the time of each tournament.

• I'll have to audit this more carefully. One (small) issue is that when the name of a player not previously mentioned is given in the same sentence with players already mentioned, it looks a bit odd to have a mixture of full and last names. Will work on this some more. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• " With early wins over Bacrot, Yue, and Topalov with white, Carlsen took the early lead, extending his winning streak with white in Nanjing to eight." -- should "white" be capitalized here? I'm not familiar enough with chess writing to be sure, but I notice the article seems to capitalize "white" in some instances but not others.

• White (or "Black") is capitalized when it refers to the player, not the pieces, so I think all instances are correct now. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• The abbreviation "Grandmaster (GM)" is introduced early in the article, and seems helpful, but the word "grandmaster" continues to be written out in most instances. Again, not a big deal for the GA criteria, but seemed worth pointing out.

• I've used the abbreviated form in the body, but kept the full word in the lead (to keep it friendlier to those less familiar with chess jargon). Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• "and considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time." -- I've certainly read this description in many places, but I wonder if it's worth adding a citation for this.

• Toccata quarta has added a source for this. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• The article doesn't mention Carlsen participating in Dortmund--is it worth including on the table of tournaments that he's won?

• Like TQ, I'm not sure if that table should stay, it's not easily sourced without the use of multiple citations that gives it the look of WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. I will raise the issue on the talk page and see if there's consensus for removing it. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• "in an opening called "very quiet game"" -- this quotation needs a source

-- Khazar2 (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This has been removed. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think it should.

• I'd say the fact that somebody was World Champion during a tournament should always be mentioned, but former titles and nationalities should be mentioned only once.

• Per WikiProject Chess#Capitalization conventions, it is correct.

• I agree it's a problem. Sasata, what do you think?

• Fixed.

• Speaking for myself (and a few others), the value of the table is dubious.

• Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like this all taken care of save for the table issue, but I'll take another look in the morning to be sure. Thanks for your speedy responses! -- Khazar2 (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Film producer J. J. Abrams" --just a quibble, but would it be preferable to call him "film director" here, as this is the role he's more famous for, with regard to this movie and others? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree and have changed it (it's also what the source calls him). Sasata (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass. A solid and excellent article. I particularly commend the editors for adding not just numeric wins and losses, but information on Carlsen's playing style overall and in individual tournaments or matches.

"Number of wins in major recurring chess tournaments"

How do others feel about removing this section from the article completely? As I see it there are two major issues: (1) it requires us to make a value judgement on what a "major" tournament is; (2) it's a nightmare to source properly, and if this article is to be eventually presented at FAC (which is the plan), then this will become a problem. It seems all the information there is already given throughout the article, so it's not completely necessary. Thoughts? (I have similar misgivings about the section "Head-to-head record versus selected grandmasters") Sasata (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove per reasons listed above. "Head-to-head record versus selected grandmasters" is more useful, since it includes information that is not covered in the rest of the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove per Sasata. -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed this section; if any future editors/readers are opposed, they are welcome to discuss it here. Sasata (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

SoulPancake

I rather doubt that the interview took place in 2013, since in it Carlsen said "I am only 21 years old". Toccata quarta (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point, and this site confirms the interview happened last year. I've changed the text. Sasata (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Portrait in the Guardian

Magnus was portrayed in the Guardian: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.196.4 (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I used the article to source his earnings. I may add a Magnus quote too, but am not sure of a good place yet to fit one in. Sasata (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

My main problem with adding earnings is that other sources can contradict information about them, like [5], which also mentions his earnings from 2010 (linking to a source) and 2009. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but I think earnings are interesting additions to chess bios unless we think the source is untrustworthy. I think the phrasing chosen by Sasata is apt: "reportedly earns" makes it clear that we haven't actually seen his tax returns but are just using information from a source generally considered reliable. If we are particularly concerned, I think it's OK to make the source of the claim explicit in the text by writing something like "The Guardian reported that he earns ...". Quale (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No chess set (2)

"Responding to a question in an interview with Time magazine in December 2009 regarding whether he used computers when studying chess, Carlsen explained that he does not use a chess set when studying on his own."

I've never been very happy with this sentence, as it is hard to incorporate into the article and borders on trivia. What do others think? Maybe it could be moved into Blindfold chess? Toccata quarta (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's hard to fit in, but to me this fact seems significant (not trivial). (I'm guessing there is no other modern GM who has reached the highest levels, without a physical set to study on. I'm guessing this is a "first". But I don't have a source on that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Here, BTW, Anand appears to indirectly react to Carlsen's statement. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thx, that was interesting. (If there's one thing we know about Carlsen, though, he's totally natural and genuine. So I conclude it's not "propaganda" in his case.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"To pause or not to pause ..."

Does this article want to be serial comma, or non-serial comma? (Currently there is an abundance of both. Toccata prefers non; Ihardly prefers serial. Do others have a preference? A first-use in 2004 was this edit, a serial comma, but perhaps that isn't a valid decider at this point.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

World Chess Championship 2013

The November match is still a few months away, but I'd like to know how others would like to add a section on it into this article. Currently, the section "Chess career" is ordered chronologically, so it may make sense to use the following format:

===2013===

[text]

====World Chess Championship (2013)====

Another possibility is to put the section outside of the chronological section, as has been done with Anand's World Championships or Kasparov's matches against computers. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ambassador for Nordic Semiconductor

See [6]. Is this significant enough to be added to the "Beyond chess" section? Toccata quarta (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a one-sentence mention would be appropriate. Quale (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Trivia

It's a long article, but notable facts are important.