Talk:Candidates Tournament 2016

FIDE report

The FIDE Arbiter's report has now been published. It emphasizes noise disturbances, and notes there was no doping control. Of course it doesn't care about Agon and the "exclusive" rights issue. It mentions Nakamura, but not the fine of his winnings from non-attendance at the press conference, nor his contention that "zero tolerance" should also have been applied. The lack of silver/bronze medals at the Closing Ceremony is not commented upon, though it claims the "final ranking" was given there (the initial rules are less clear).

I personally would rather not rewrite the wikipage to include this information. 129.78.68.110 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Deleting anonymous stuff

To User:Elizabeth'94: Everyone agrees in the Talk agrees that the 129 guy is just an anonymous spammer with his own ax to grind. None of what he writes is relevant to chess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfaarlaanes (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree. If everything other than "official" news from WorldChess.com is considered "spam", then there's little to say. 129.78.68.110 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, too much was deleted here. There definitely need to be a mention of the broadcast restrictions. -Koppapa (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If too much was deleted, IMO it's because too much drivel was written originally. For broadcast restrictions, the whole thing is in limbo until court cases are resolved, so there's not much to say, other than voluminous Internet opinions. Nothing authoritative. None of the four affected websites that were listed have commented, only Agon and loud outsiders, so first-hand sourcing is not feasible. Plus, the average reader looking at the page doesn't care about them, they care about the chess. The grade given to the page was "C-class", due to so "much irrelevant matter" (quoting standards). Best long-term solution probably is some sort of "chess and media" or "chess and copyright" page, and link to it. For now, it's best to stick factually, rather than spam Wikipedia with "possible" items of interest, much out of the direct scope of what one expects from the "Candidates Tournament" page label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfaarlaanes (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I thought the article was wonderful a few days ago, I came back - to see it ALL gone! Who are you, Sfaarlaanes? It seems your only wikipedia edits have been about the 2016 candidates. To delete a lot of it. "Loud outsiders" = everyone besides Agon? Irrelevant, according to who? It all seemed very "relevant" to me. It's an important story. It seems you want all mention of this farce deleted. Why? Yesenadam (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have tried to reinsert what Sfaarlaanes deleted - not easy, because they did more edits after that so reversion wasn't possible. I guess that's why no-one else has done it yet. Suggesting that worldchess is the only legitimate source, is like suggesting White House press conferences are the only legitimate source for the actions of the US government. It's ridiculous, which is why I've had trouble assuming good faith with Sfaarlaanes; sorry about that. Possibly this material needs editing; but when I read it a few days ago, I thought it was very good - I have been closely following the issues, reading (almost) all the available sources etc. And I thought it was very good writing. Edit if u must or if you can, but wholesale deletion does not improve the article. It seems only Sfaarlaanes wants/wanted to do that, anyway. The whole point of Candidates having its own page was that it has become very 'notable', in a chess-historical if not in a good way, thanks to AGON/worldchess. Yesenadam (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

i just noticed that this section was created after Elizabeth94 reverted Sfaarlaanes' deletion, and asked please not to delete again without starting discussion on this page! Sfaarlaanes ignored that, deleted immediately again, and wrote the puzzling lines at the top of this section. E94's request to take it to the talk page didn't mean to delete again and leave a couple of lines here about why you were right to do so. And I couldn't find the discussion where 'everyone agrees'. Just a lot of Sfaarlaanes assuring people that he knows exactly what people coming to this page and the WCC 2016 want to see - i.e. the parts he doesn't delete. And accusing other people of having axes to grind. On the whole, totally unacceptable behaviour. Hopefully it has now stopped. Yesenadam (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Even the original spammer agreed, there is no "issue" with the broadcast restrictions. The only mainstream news about it is the Guardian, I will quote them. Everything else is simply not chess content, or is just from tweets/blogs, or from chess "news" sites that are really in competition with Agon (some that have more ethics like ChessBase, have not bothered to even cover the "issue").

Please stop remove information now. Are you involved by Agon? Elizabeth'94 (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A few points. Firstly, there is a lot of technical detail which the average reader is unlikely to understand. Certainly I'm struggling to understand a lot of it with the legal issues. Secondly, with all that material included, the tone appears to be that Agon is definitely in the wrong so NPOV isnt being employed properly. The reality is that Agon may be wrong but its a matter of opinion, not fact, and we must be careful in how we word the text with regard to it. Thirdly, while the off-board stuff is important, the "main event" is what is on the board and I think the article needs to reflect that in the balance of it's coverage. Fourthly, We all disagree with each other every so often, but an edit war helps no one at all. My view is that a lot of that material could be culled without affecting the quality of the article. Some might disagree. Let's try to find a solution without it boiling over. Given this is the most important Chess WIki at the moment, its critical that we work together to fix the problems. Jkmaskell (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

But revert a deleting is not an edit war from my side. First agreement, then deleting information. I cannot find anyone whoes agree with sfaarlaanes, see above. My english is unfortunately too bad to edit the mainspave. Agon is of course wrong, but het deleted the information that Agon is wrong. or from chess "news" sites that are really in competition with Agon (some that have more ethics like ChessBase, have not bothered to even cover the "issue") Sfaarlaanes stands clearly with Agon. Much page about e.g. mathamatics are also very difficult. There has not been a technical discussion. Deleting information without talk is prohibited and everyone is permitted to replace. Elizabeth'94 (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Other than Staarlaanes, I think we all want to see some cooperation and better balance here. What is there does summarize the Agon case quite succinctly. By adding a small number of points made by the Agon detractors, it may be that adequate balance could be restored without swamping the article. What is missing? Agon's action was too late in the day to be reasonable for other broadcasters to cancel their arrangements (GM Rogers said this); also, there is clearly a privacy concern over Agon spying on people's social media when you sign up for so-called 'free' access to the official broadcast (Source?). These are just two issues that I think need bringing forward, but the control of the moves/PGN issue will also need to be given some fairer treatment if a good source can be found for that too. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but my english in unfortunately too bad to do so. Elizabeth'94 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of "anonymous spammers with axes to grind" - I'd really love to know who Sfaarlanes really is.. their only edits ever were on 16th and 17th of March, on this page. Including deleting the 30k+ stuff on AGON/worldchess fiasco 3 times. Yesenadam (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Zero tolerance

Regarding "zero tolerance": Not going to argue it one way or the other, but Anand's zero tolerance situation was mentioned by Chess.com, covered on the blog of a former FIDE Rules Commission member (Shaun Press), also discussed extensively in comments on another well-known chess blog (S&B), with Chess Crimes weighing in too, already in the first day after. Seemed reasonably newsworthy to me. I felt it was important to catalogue it when it happened, especially as Chess.com seemed to be implying there was some benefice to Anand (after in italics), and the question of whether the arbiter (as Chess.com said) was the one to put the rule into effect was also in dispute. Probably two bulky paragraphs was (much) too long as a brief comment I admit, and at least the original citations were not sufficiently demonstrative (not sure which citations got lost/restored by the end with the various edits/undos and page splitting).

IMO, it's at least as important as other various trivia on the page (which I also admit could be junked). 129.78.68.110 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a one liner. Never heard of Chess Crimes (doesn't appear to have a named person running it) or Shaun Press and S&B is a small English blog. If you watch the footage it is Topalov who is last (which is odd because its stated clearly by Doggers that Anand was) and the clock was started by the guest. It was commented on live coverage today that the footage of the countdown clock is not perfectly synched with the footage of the stage. To make such a big deal of it seems like pedantry. Jkmaskell (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Chess.com made a one line comment, but didn't mention any controversy. I have heard of Shaun Press because we're from the same country, and he even has a Wikipedia article. But it wasn't "covered in his blog" - it was mentioned in anonymous feedback. Shaun did reply, but had no knowledge of the incident. We could reproduce the one line from chess.com, but I don't see the point. For what it's worth, the fact that no one but chess.com reports it also raises the question of whether chess.com is correct, in my opinion (reinforced by the comment above about the video footage). I do agree with your last comment though: lots of the trivia (much of which is POV) should be removed. Adpete (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As I say, I'm out of it ("live" reporting on wikipedia) by now, but Nakamura said on chess.com "I think all the rules should be followed uniformly, and that includes the zero-tolerance rule which I can say is not enforced uniformly." So I really think that yes, it was an issue, but due to various conventions, was not mentioned aloud. But after Nakamura's situation, such conventions have broken down, so to speak. Just my two cents. 129.78.68.110 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Most important part of WC cycle

Whoever deleted this phrase (Adpete?), it comes straight from FIDE. Whatever your opinion is on the matter, I think they know better than you! (Sfaarlaanes)

Normally I'd agree but the Candidates is the second most important part of the FIDE cycle given it chooses the Challenger who faces the World Champion. Its the most important part of the qualification cycle, but the whole cycle will include the WC match, held under FIDE jurisdiction too. The wording in that lead seems odd and could do with a little tightening. Its our Wikipedia article, not FIDEs. Jkmaskell (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I have to disagree. The page should reflect reality, not our opinions. Otherwise it would end up like that 129 spammer, mucking whatever he can find from tweets and blogs, to fit his ideological purpose. The original phrasing was copied here from the old page it seems, so I added a beginning clause, to make it clear that the claim is FIDE's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfaarlaanes (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Some statements, even cited statements, are plainly ridiculous. These were some very poorly chosen words by Kirsan, nothing more. It is not "according to FIDE". It is not official FIDE policy. It was simply poorly chosen words. And I'm sure Kirsan has said similar things about the WC match in the past. But perhaps most importantly, the statement is redundant. It adds nothing to the article and certainly doesn't belong in the lead sentence. Adpete (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Kirsan has also said "The Candidates Tournament is one of the most important and most followed tournaments in the World Chess Championship cycle." [1] So which one is FIDE's opinion? "Most important" or "one of the most important". That's why a one-off statement shouldn't be used for the lead sentence in the article. Adpete (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

And in 2012 Kirsan said the WC match was the most important: "Moscow will soon welcome these outstanding Grandmasters" (Anand and Gelfand) "to the most important tournament on the international chess calendar!" [2] Adpete (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, it's harder to win the Candidates than to win the WC match, which is about the only argument I can think of. Certainly the WC match is "more important" to FIDE in a monetary sense. 129.78.68.110 (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Dominance of "Broadcast restrictions"

This is an article about a tournament. What's the idea to write a whole novel about some legal stuff that takes up much more space than information about the participants, the rules, the games etc.? That's a minor aspect of this tournament and should be treated that way which IMHO means in one paragraph. --Bernardoni (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I have already raised this issue at Talk:World Chess Championship 2016#Broadcast restrictions when the section was part of the World Chess Championship 2016 article. I fully agree, it is way to long. Can't see how it is relevant to the outcome of the tournament. Calistemon (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree, start trimming it down or make a suggested section here at the talk page. I haven't really followed the whole thing, it seems it was "seen" more a problem before the tourney and in the early rounds. -Koppapa (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it is distracting. Interesting though. Hopefully that section can be inserted into another more relevant article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.56.182 (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Not only is it way too long, but it breaches Wikipedia guidelines by uses of primary sources and original research. For instance, the second sentence ("This is in line with a 2011 ECU memo...") quotes and comments on an ECU memo - this is a use of a primary source, and original research (who SAYS it's "in line"?). And I could go on and on through the whole section. I don't mind 2-3 paragraphs being there, but it needs to properly use secondary sources and have no original research. Adpete (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Chess only, some insist

"Can't see how it [the AGON/worldchess fiasco] is relevant to the outcome of the tournament" - I really don't understand these and similar criticisms, as if only the actual moves are on-topic, somehow, and everything else is borderline irrelevant. Why? That seems kind of.. a priori, deciding what is important about something before it happens. Do these people object to the toilet shennanigans being mentioned on the Toiletgate page? The endless Fischer threats and demands in relation to Fischer-Spassky 1972? etc etc endlessly. Uh, I guess not. Maybe this candidates will be remembered mainly for the spectacular AGON/worldchess fail. I wouldn't be surprised.

People who admit to not following it say they don't know about the non-chess aspects. Well yes, you weren't following it.

Also - I believe one of the more ludicrous facts from this Candidates isn't mentioned - for Round 1 (this is from memory) the official live broadcast had to get the moves from chessbomb, whose moves were submitted anonymously by users - because the customary channel - to get them automatically from Chessbase, had been blocked by AGON themselves. AGON is suing both those websites. Notably farcical.

Results

The results table is completely messed up (just take a look at it and you'll see what I mean. Someone should definitely fix it. FinalForm (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Was vandalized some weeks ago. Thanks, I reverted. -Koppapa (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)