Find eBook best deals and download PDF. ReViewing Chess: English, 1 c6, Vol . by Michael W. Raphael. Download PDF eBook. Book review. Error in.
Table of contents
Preface to Steinitz Olms edition. Di Felice , pp. Di Felice , p. Some consider Steinitz's reign to have begun in , after he won a match against Adolf Anderssen , Golombek , p. Winter April 30, ; Gaige , p. Gossip's draw against Weiss ChessGames. Likewise, a player can achieve the International Master title by achieving the requisite International Master norms and attaining a rating of at some point.
However, echoing the general contempt for Gossip, Reinfeld begins his discussion of the game by observing, "Every dog has his day. Pollock won the brilliancy prize for his scintillating victory over Weiss. That game can be played over at ChessGames. Australian Chess Lore Volume 1.
Moravian Chess Publishing House. Chess History and Reminiscences. Dean and Son London. Bisguier, Arthur and Soltis, Andrew American Chess Masters from Morphy to Fischer. Caissa Books Publishing Ltd. Brady, Frank 2nd ed. Profile of a Prodigy. The Correspondence Chess of Ellen Gilbert. Fireside; Rei Sub edition. Wonders and Curiosities of Chess. Chernev, Irving and Reinfeld, Fred The Fireside Book of Chess.
Chigorin—Gossip, New York Gossip—Weiss, New York Mason—Gunsberg, New York Showalter—Gossip, New York Weiss—Pollock, New York The Batsford Book of Chess Records. Modern Chess Openings 15th edition. Di Felice, Gino The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present. The World's Great Chess Games. Fischer, Bobby Summer Fox, Mike and James, Richard Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess.
Theory of the Chess Openings. Hooper, David and Whyld, Kenneth 1st ed. The Oxford Companion to Chess.
- leondumoulin.nl:Kindle Store:Kindle eBooks:Humour:Puzzles & Games:Puzzles!
- Talk:First-move advantage in chess/Archive 1!
- Find and Download Book.
- Truffles by the Sea (Chocolate Series Book 2).
Hooper, David and Whyld, Kenneth 2nd ed. My Great Predecessors , Part I. The Chess Advantage in Black and White. Kooyman, Roy November 20, The Hall-of-Fame History of U. Chess in the Old West. Archived from the original on October 13, Mechanics' Institute Chess Club Mechanics' Institute Chess Room Newsletter Mechanics' Institute Chess Club.
British Chess Magazine reprint. The New York Times May 13, A Brief History of the Game in Philadelphia. A Treasury of British Chess Masterpieces. A Century of British Chess. April rating list. ISBN Olms edition. The Modern Chess Instructor. It is certainly a very fine article, well researched and documented. I have only two minor style issues, and they are not that big and could go either way. Approve Given that the comments in my review hereabover have found solutions, I approve that this article should be given A-class, on the basis of this version.
Of course there is still room for improvement so I am not sure the article would do it to FA-class.
Find and Download Book
For example the interesting comments made by Voorlandt on the Talk page of the article about the relativity of the advantage depending on the level of players. But as long as there is no source it is difficult to work further on that. Comment Hereunder are my comments and proposals for improvements, based on the review of this version of the article.
All in all I am really impressed by this article. It is factual, precise and well-referenced on a subject that is really not easy. At the end of this review I would like to propose it to GA-class at least. For A-class, let's wait until the end of this review: Moved from the articles talk page. Don't think headings should be in quotes. Done a peer review and this is bits I think apply.
I think consideration should be given to splitting up this section and include in other parts of the article. It's sure it's fine in context but a section with statistics might not be to welcomed by some reviewers. Support This article is very well written and nicely referenced. I therefore support upgrading this article to class A.
As best I can tell, all the concerns expressed about the article by Bubba73, SyG, and SunCreator have now been addressed, and I think to the satisfaction of the proponents of those concerns? A couple of other random things: Is there a way to make the horizontal line for database go all the way across, and to make all the vertical lines go all the way down? First-move advantage in chess. Anyone else have an opinion on that?
Thanks for all your help with the article! To me this article seems GA class right now, should it be proposed as GA or should it continue to be improved and go for FA class? It's officially May 3 Wikipedia time, and I believe more than one week since the last comment. Does someone want to close out the nomination? The exponents have merged into the numbers in the quote.
Near the end two references back-to-back are identical; one could be removed or a named ref could be used. Jonathan Rowson apparently believes it's possible, but there are arguments based on Bremermann's limit that say otherwise:. However, it may well be that solving chess is possible without actually examining the entire tree, so this argument is not absolutely prohibitive.
Thoroughly fascinating article, by the way. For starters, room for only those with 32 and 31 pieces would be sufficient or 31 and 30, etc. Guido den Broeder talk I have reorganized the article, especially the "Modern Perspectives" section, in an attempt to group the different ideas White has an enduring initiative, Black is OK!
See what you think. Just wondered why the New in Chess section is blank for the White wins, drawn and Black wins percentages. Was the information not available? There should maybe be some explanation. The article has passed GA Review! See here for the details. Thanks to Noble Story for the suggestions and review, and to everyone who worked on the article! Since the diagrams in question seemed worthwhile to me, and eliminating them wasn't necessary to pass GA Review, I restored them, leaving the article in its current state. On more general grounds, I am not fully convinced we need to dwelve in such details like giving the full game and a latter position, so I would suggest to delete both the full notation of the game and the diagrams that come second.
The casual reader knows very little about chess, so he is able to see that a position is symetric therefore the first diagram is good but does not have a clue about the positions not symetric therefore the second diagram is not useful. Meanwhile, the expert reader the one that knows a lot about chess can still follow the full game on www. This would make it possible to introduce the CEGT paragraph with e. Lead seemed a little long, more a mini article than a summary.
But, on reflection, I think it suits the topic. Chess players will love the stats, which are introduced clearly and logically. Non-chess players need only the lead, which covers a great deal of relevant information in a short space. In this case, I'd counsel that footnotes in the lead would actually be a good thing. As a chess player, my intuition runs in sympathy with the lead, but I'm not sure I'm right or that the lead is.
For example, I play the Sicilian, which does have reactive advantages, but I'm not sure how the computers play that out. A book with good commentary on this would be a useful cite.
Anyway, I'll shut up, 'cause I was asked to copyedit not review. Alastair Haines talk However, I believe that this remark should be removed from the lead section of the article. To give context to my rationale, recall from the content guideline on lead sections:. If there are any other objections, I'd be pleased to discuss them here so we can reach consensus. Overall I think this is a very good article on a difficult topic and I'm happy to see more chess articles reaching featured status!
I want to be clear by restating exactly what I am and am not objecting to. For starters I am not objecting to mentioning this tidbit at all ; of course it fits well later in the article. I am not objecting to the factual nature of the claim; Watson's opinion is as notable as anybody's. I am objecting to mentioning it in the lead, especially in its current form. To avoid repetition, as I explained above the short reasons I am objecting to that are that it states Watson's editorial opinion as bald fact, and that it is out of balance given that the lead should be a condensed summary of the article.
Therefore I unfortunately have to say that it does not address my objection to reword the statement as Krakatoa so nobly attempted here [9]. This article, recently elevated to Featured Article, is rated as being of "Mid-importance". That is the third-highest category, below "High" and "Top" importance and above only "Low" importance. I'm not sure if "Mid-importance" is the right classification.
The article is about the size and nature of White's advantage.
Project MUSE - Chess Minds and Critical Moves
It discusses Adams, Rauzer, and Berliner, respected masters who claim ed that chess is or may be a forced win for White. It seems to me that whether the game is a forced win for White or not is a pretty fundamental and thus important question for chessplayers. I suggest that "High" importance is a more appropriate classification. What does everyone else think? OK, this is enough of a consensus to me, and I think the argument of interwiki, while generally valid, does not apply here because the article is too young.
I changed the importance to "High". This is a great article! I missed the FAC, but it really is accessible and does a very good job of covering the theory on this. Not sure if it covers everything is there more on the early stuff - what about views before Steintz and more details on the 19th century and early 20th century views? A previous disussion concluded that one can't have chess diagrams side by side on the right, and the article now has several pairs of diagrams on the left.
This is better than sandwiching the text, but IMO is bad for readability because it changes the positions of the starts of lines. There's no official technique for grouping image objects on the right, but I found one that works for simple images, see Small shelly fauna. This has long been considered one of the sharpest and most problematic or even foolhardy [1] [2] [3] opening lines. Bg5 is seldom seen at the highest level because the main line of this variation leads, with best play, to a draw by perpetual check. Francisco Vallejo Pons -Kasparov, Armenia vs.
Rest of the World Match [9] [10]: However, Georgiev and Kolev's pessimistic assessment of 6. Bg5 has since been called into question, as White has succeeded with Just reversed some edits that said it would NOT be feasible that any computer will ever be able solve chess. It is original research or at least unreferenced and it also contradicts some of the existing references in this article.
It also contradicts my personal view although granted my personal view on this is irrelevant to wikipedia SunCreator talk Given that 10 90 years is immensely much more than the age of the universe, this basically means that two of the three references are saying it is effectively impossible. Note also that Shannon gives a number of 10 for the number of possible games, and that the number of atoms in the visible universe is about 10 80 , which means that to actually store the solution to chess would require storing 10 40 games per atom in the visible universe. Those are the kinds of limitations Bremermann is talking about.
IMO, the current references therefore support the view that it is "infeasible" not "impossible" that a computer will ever solve chess. In game theoretical terms, there are three possible ways to solve a game:. When referring the number 10 , Shannon is referring to perfect play from the starting position, ie: Since the article is clearly not referring to ultra-weak solving, the argument I make above is perfectly valid.
Before proceeding I should just clarify that 'hypertheory' does not mean 'computer theory'. The reason I mention computers in this context is that chess is theoretically finite. No human could ever grasp chess from a hypertheoretical perspective, but in principle it should be possible for a machine to reach this fundamental perspective and develop piece tablebases. This may take decades or even centuries, [end of page ] but unless runaway global warming or nuclear war gets in the way, I think it will theoretically eventually happen.
Rowson is indeed talking about strong solving. There's no indication whether he has any idea of the practical problems involved in this, or what if any expertise he has on the subject of computers. According to the article about him, Jonathan Rowson has no expertise in either mathematics or computers.
Shannon and Bremermann on the other hand clearly do. On top of that, Shannon has actually researched the issue scientifically, and is quite well-known for it eg: I will try to do a bit of a rewrite to incorporate this in the text. Jonathan Schaeffer, the scientist who led the effort, said a breakthrough such as quantum computing would be needed before solving chess could even be attempted, but he does not rule out the possibility, saying that the one thing he learned from his year effort of solving checkers "is to never underestimate the advances in technology".
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Retrieved from " https: Views Read Edit View history.
This page was last edited on 7 July , at By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Not Enabled Enhanced Typesetting: Not Enabled Average Customer Review: Be the first to review this item Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
Navigation menu
Would you like to report this content as inappropriate? Do you believe that this item violates a copyright? Delivery and Returns see our delivery rates and policies thinking of returning an item? See our Returns Policy. Visit our Help Pages. Audible Download Audio Books.