Talk:Carlsen versus Nepomniachtchi, World Chess Championship 2021, Game 6

Deletion

Why does this deserve a separate article? 212.3.196.132 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• It’s the longest chess game in a World Chess Championship ever and the first decisive classical game in more than five years, which is the longest winless period in the history of FIDE World Chess Championships. If we can have separate articles on tennis matches, I don’t see any reason why not to have on important chess games.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed Kiril DansterTheManster (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep This game is notable from several points of view, as already pointed out above (longest game in the history of WCC, first decisive game in five years). Whether the game will still be considered notable in a few weeks, months, or years remains to be seen. For the moment, I think it should stay. Retxnihps (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I redirected this page earlier. I don't believe this game is independently notable and should be merged back into the WCC match page. The WCC match is of course notable, but not this individual game. Natg 19 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of this article was discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlsen versus Nepomniachtchi, World Chess Championship 2021, Game 6 Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC) - result was keep

Strange line

"The arising position is very pleasant for Black, although it should be holdable with a perfect defence." It seems to be that if the position is very pleasant for Black, it shouldn't require perfect defense to hold the draw. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Corrected. It should be "unpleasant" as in Giri's commentary for ChessBase.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Short and Urcan

Short and Urcan don't appear in the chess24 article itself, they appear in the comments section. Comment sections are user-generated content, although they aren't explicitly mentioned in WP:UGC or WP:RSSELF. I don't think we should be citing the comments section as if it were a reliable source.

That’s not true. They appear as in-line images between paragraphs that refer to them. It’s a fancy practice which many news outlets have adopted in the recent years when citing statements from relevant people posted in the social media. If you want to see the comment section of the article, please scroll down to the bottom and note its format.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You're right, thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Annotations

The use of annotation symbols seems too liberal. Also, while I am fine with the commentary being targeted towards a more general audience, some of the comments make claims without providing the rationale.

-"With this move order, White aims for a Catalan-like setup, but not exactly, because the move c4 is delayed." From this quote, I am getting the impression that the annotations are meant to explain the game in simpler terms.

-"This move delays re-capturing on c4 but avoids a queen exchange." I understand that symbol usage depends on the writer, but giving a "!?" seems unnecessary. It's a common idea in the position to avoid trades and also to possibly gambit a pawn. Taking right away for Black blunders a bishop, while 9...Qe7 Nbd2 cxb3 allows Nxb3 with gain of tempo and immense control for White with ideas like Ne5 or Nfd2. If Black tries to unpin with the bishop, he loses the pawn with developmental concessions. Why does Nbd2 also get "!?"? The idea is clearly to head to c4 or take on b3 as mentioned earlier.

-"Black could have gone for an easy draw with 29... Bb2." 29 ...Be5 also draws, but there is no explanation for refutation or the possible ideas that White can employ.

-"Carlsen managed to survive the time trouble and get a promising position; however, 40. Rdc2!! would have won the a4-pawn and resulted in a winning endgame." While this is accurate, the line Rdc2 f5 Nxa4 Qxa4 Rc3 should have been provided for clarity.

Et cetera...

There is a general lack of explanation for the annotations, which is okay only if readers can understand the position (and even so, at least the lines should be given). Otherwise, justification should be given. There is also some disparity with regards to the target audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:8EF4:EAD:65FE:D001 (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The section is labelled with {{Algebraic notation}}, which redirects to this article where all those symbols are explained.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You should watch your usage of annotation symbols. It's very obvious that you use these symbols if the move seems interesting to you, or if the move is a mistake according to some engine evaluation. I already explained why Qc2 and Nbd2 are undeserving of the "!?" status. If the move is a mistake, you should be able to explain it. When players say that a position is losing, it's either obvious or they show the line. For example, when you give 31 ...Bb2 a "?", you have to show the line 32 Rc5 Qd6 Rcc2 Bxa3 Nf4, and now White dominates the open files and prepares to infiltrate the seventh rank. You remarked that 29 ...Bb2 is an easy draw but not 31 ...Bb2, with no justification. The main issue is: who is your audience here? There is a mix of elementary statements along with claims you assume players take for granted. If it's not obvious to the WCC players, it's not obvious to the readers.

I didn’t add “?” to 31... Bb2 as it was already there in Giri’s commentary for ChessBase, and showing the line which follows is original research because it’s not explained in the cited analysis. You’re encouraged to find a better and more detailed analysis of the game in order to explain the annotations. And please note that the content of the article requires some chess knowledge in the same way as the content in articles covering mathematical topics require knowledge in mathematics. The purpose of this article is not meant to make the average reader understand chess better.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)