Talk:Magnus Carlsen/Archive 1

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)

At least on the FIDE Carlsen is Norway's number five, not number two - see the FIDE site at [1] (note that the page will update as the rating list updates, so he might eventually be shown at number two, but at the moment he isn't). I'm assuming Norway has their own rating system as well - if so, he may well be number two on that list, but in that case the Norwegian list needs to be specified (that said, [2] seems to suggest he's actually number seven on the Norwegian list, though as that page is in Norwegian I may be misunderstanding what it is). --Camembert 21:13, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agdestein was a teacher at the Norwegian high school for sports talents and had excellent connections with the Norwegian Chess Federation. In those roles he at least had a lot of power of what a good chess player who became a "civil worker" should do if he chose to do civil service in either of those institutions. However I find the insertion that GM Ringdal Hansen was a civil worker irrelevant for the article about Magnus Carlsen. The sentence talkong of Egil Drillo Olsen as Simen Agdesteins role model for coaching also seems irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulvind (talk • contribs) 05:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [[3]]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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] ([4])

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

I don't see why he would joke about such a condition. The word "crazy" is usually used tongue-in-cheek (and Carlsen might actually expect to become as "crazy" as Fischer), but "autism"/"Asperger's" is not, AFAIK. I don't know any autists to compare him to, but maybe neither does Carlsen. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why did this conversation die out, but this has now been added in the #Beyond chess section, along with his recent clarification on the issue from December 2013. --Diblidabliduu (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The exact norwegian quote suggests the answer, if accurate, was given in jest, which probably matches the manner in which the question was asked. Note that the journalist who asked the question did not take the answer seriously. It does not suggest Carlsen hinted at having an actual diagnosis or even that he was making light of autism in general. 62.92.60.96 (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

• "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 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)

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)

• "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)

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)

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)

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, [5], 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)

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.

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)

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)

Magnus was portrayed in the Guardian: [6] — 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 [7], 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)

"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)

It doesn't have anything to do with blindfold chess -- playing on a computer screen is not playing blindfolded. -- Jibal (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

See [8]. 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)

User:Computerarts has just added a bit of information to this article ([9]). I'm strongly opposed to the addition of such information to it, not only due to consistency reasons (since the article generally avoids mentioning such "notable" facts), but also because of the article's length. At the moment, the article has almost 90,000 bytes. If we insist on adding such excessive detail all over it, it could have over 200,000 bytes in 20 years, which is not a good idea (see WP:TOOBIG).

As for Computerarts, the maturity and interest in collaborative editing demonstrated by this user are nothing to brag about (see [10] and [11]). Toccata quarta (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, his add has no consensus per WP:BRD, he's bullying it in, I think he should be blocked. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The material has been restored again by the disruptive, uncivil editor. As I said before in one or two edit summaries, I'm not opposed to the material per se, but I think it should at most be put in the article Sinquefield Cup. This article is meant to be an overview of Carlsen's life and chess career. See also WP:SS. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1457694_10151942445847492_886780098_n.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151942445847492

This picture is from the ongoing World Chess Championship in Chennai. Is it appropriate for the Wikipedia article?

5.10.51.131 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if anything, it should be put into the article World Chess Championship 2013, not here. But even then, I don't think it's encyclopedic and relevant enough; for instance, I haven't seen photographs of topless girls in similar association football/tennis/whatever articles. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

   A picture is worth a thousand words, but pix (especially those residing on non-WMF servers) are not as longlived, and the following wordy description should remain accessible as long as WP survives, ensuring this discussion does not turn cryptic:

   The photo depicts four young women. They stand with their bare backs to the camera, and their arms are vertical. The fronts of their bodies are against a Norwegian national flag, with their hands holding the top of one of the two long edges of the flag: the impression (at least) is they are both displaying it and hiding themselves from anyone in front of them. Its short edges must be 6 or 7 feet and anyone on the far side of the flag must see, at most, their fingers and perhaps some feet.
   Two of them seem to have some kind of footwear and two to be barefoot. Each has one or two letters, apparently painted, on the small of her back: from left to right, C AR LS EN. Each wears what looks to me like the pants for a set of flannel pajamas. (In two cases, the waistband appears to be rolled down either to shorten the length of the garment, or to have the effect of reducing the waistband's diameter lest it slip lower on the wearer's hips.) I just recalled, tho, something that made me look up the details: "pajama" is a word derived from Persian, that entered English via Hindi, and describes a pants-and-jacket garment worn (perhaps routinely in public) in the subcontinent by both sexes -- so perhaps these are routine indigenous street-wear.

--Jerzy•t 03:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not quite a thousand words, but perhaps more than is needed or relevant here. (Now a photo of Magnus Carlsen playing chess in topless pajamas--that would be a thing.) Jonathunder (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"should remain accessible as long as WP survives, ensuring this discussion does not turn cryptic"—are you kidding me? If it becomes cryptic, then it means that the subject of the discussion was hardly notable. Stop wasting talk page space; as WP:TPG says, "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." It says nothing about "clarification for posterity". Toccata quarta (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

At "2004" (game vs Ernst) is a diagram. But the text must be incorrect. "The situation after 17.... e5 is OK but then follows that a piece is captured at g6. But the square is empty. Also the notation of whilte's 18th move has wrong syntax. Boeing720 (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I must be missing something. The article states that Carlsen played 18.Ng6, not 18.Nxg6. Also, Black's previous move was c5, not e5. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

My simultane chess capacity is obviously poor (c5 vs e5). But without a new line the entire 18th move should be 18.Ng6 fxg6, (question) ? That seems to make sence. In such diagram texts perhaps new lines should be avoided as in this case. Or perhaps it's only I that have had difficulties reading it ? Thanks anyhow Boeing720 (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In the "Playing style" section Jon Speelman is quoted. I'm wondering if there's a typo in the quote that was introduced when it was copied to Wikipedia. Specifically, we have

He plays on for ever, calmly, methodically...

I suspect that should be

He plays on forever, calmly, methodically...

This quote cites "Speelman, Jon (2013). "Carlsen's Endgame Magic". New In Chess (1): 33–41" which I can't find on line. Can someone with a copy verify if Speelman wrote "for ever" or "forever"? --Marc Kupper|talk 00:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have checked the source and confirm that it is written as two words, "for ever". Sasata (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

According to a brief web search (which might not be 100% reliable I admit), e.g. this site, [12] "for ever" is incorrect in North American English but acceptable in UK English. So we should leave it as "for ever", with no "sic" either, because Speelman is British. Adpete (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll go along with that, but someone is eventually going to either make it one word or put sic. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

An appropriate <!-- comment --> in the markup might help. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  Done Sasata (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Shotcallerballerballer recently added an entry referencing a nonexistent FIDE rating list, dated "December 2013" [sic], to this article (and also the article List of FIDE chess world number ones). I have discussed this with him at User talk:Shotcallerballerballer#Live ratings. For the record, here are my objections to his edits:

1. The consensus of WP:CHESS is that live ratings should generally not be mentioned in articles (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 24#Live ratings). But even if that were not the case, his edits are still wrong; the article List of FIDE chess world number ones is about FIDE ratings, and the section of this article that he just edited is called "Standings on top 100 FIDE lists". FIDE ratings are not live ratings.
2. While the odds are small, it would be realistic for Carlsen to play a rated game before the December 2013 FIDE ratings are published. Hence his referencing of http://2700chess.com/ is a violation of WP:BALL.
3. Live ratings are updated all the time, but he is placing special emphasis on ratings at the start of a month, while ignoring other live ratings, which means that he is interpreting the material posted at http://2700chess.com/ in light of an official rating list that hasn't been published. I believe this is a violation of WP:SYN. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• The World Chess Championship was originally scheduled to last until 28 November. Any tournaments Carlsen may play in after that would not be submitted in time for the December list. According to http://ratings.fide.com/tournament_list.phtml?moder=ev_code&country=IND&rating_period=2013-12-01 , the World championship will be rated on the December list. The rating changes can be calculated from http://ratings.fide.com/calculators.phtml if 2700chess in not a "reliable source". While the December list had not yet been published, it can be said with near certainty what Carlsen's rating will be on that date. Therefore I don't think this addition is a violation of WP:BALL and should be included. Q6637p (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • You didn't address my remaining points, not that your reasoning is valid. The article section that Shotcallerballerballer edited is called "Standings on top 100 FIDE lists". Making reference to a nonexistent rating list is a violation of WP:V. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
    • That the December 2013 top 100 FIDE list is currently nonexistent is irrelevant. Reliable sources show that when the December 2013 list is published, Magnus Carlsen's rating will be 2872. See Wikipedia:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable...". As I have shown, the December 2013 FIDE list in not unverifiable speculation, it is verifiable speculation. While the list has not been published, it is calculated according to a specific set of rules which have been published by a reliable source.Q6637p (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wait until the official FIDE list comes out. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• The talk section is intended for discussion, not voting. Have you got any rationale for that decision?Q6637p (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. We go by official FIDE ratings, which come out once a month. The live ratings are not official and not from FIDE. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

and he will be kicking off the match for Real Madrid at Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, invited by the club's president. Is this worthy of inclusion in the "beyond chess" section? (Source:VG) Iselilja (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm quite sceptical of its value. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in "beyond chess". But I do think it's appropriate to mention in the aftermath of his WC win - it's part of the way he's been honoured in celebration of his win. The above link is in Norwegian, but there's a nice English article at Chessbase: http://en.chessbase.com/post/homecoming-of-a-champion Adpete (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Once every 365 days or so, he will do something on his birthday. So does everyone else. I don't see any connection here worth noting in an encyclopedic biography. Jonathunder (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Chess players are rarely honoured at such high-profile mainstream venues. It seems worth mentioning. Cobblet (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

One editor has deemed Carlsen's victory at the 2009 World Blitz Chess Championship "not important" [sic], and removed it from the lead. I'd like to hear opinions on this from others. Myself, I believe that the coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to justify keeping this in the lead. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that he is the classic world champion, the smaller blitz title doens't need to be mentioned in the lead i think. -Koppapa (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The World Blitz currently doesn't compare in prestige to Wijk aan Zee, Linares or possibly even Melody Amber from a few years back; it shouldn't be accorded such prominence in the lead. Cobblet (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the page will be featured on the WP front page soon (when he wins the world championship, as he now almost certainly will), I've tried to make the lead a better summary of his career, i.e.: 1. Remove some ratings trivia, e.g. 5th to reach 2800 (not a big deal because of ratings inflation), the fact that the previous youngest #1 was Kramnik (too much detail for lead), etc. 2. Add a paragraph on his more important world championship events, i.e. youngest candidate in 2007, withdrew from 2012 cycle. 3. Removed 2009 Blitz champion - too minor for lead. This got reverted with simply the comment "wholly unhelpful destruction of the lead". Please, if you don't like it, work on it rather than revert. Surely you admit the old lead had too much detail? Adpete (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the only part of the lead with too much detail is the second paragraph. Here are my replies to your points:

1. Whether or not that is included in the lead (and in the article as well) is determined by WP:N an WP:DUE. I think that the coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to keep this material in the lead. I do agree that the mention of Kramnik should go.
2. I'm not sure about the value of including information on his withdrawing from the previous World Chess Championship cycle. For instance, the lead of the article Bobby Fischer (which you rewrote substantially a few months ago) doesn't discuss Fischer's withdrawals and semi-retirement. I agree that the "youngest candidate" information should be added.
3. Same as my first answer. Besides, it's just a brief sentence; it's not cluttering the lead up. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the mention of the blitz, the 2nd paragraph was the only part of the lead I changed! The Fischer lead is shorter because there was a lot more of his life compress, so it's not a direct comparison. But surely, 4 sentences on ratings in the lead (not counting the lead paragraph) is excessive, wouldn't you agree? So I looked for what to trim, and "5th past 2800" was an obvious candidate. We also don't need the exact age he became world #1, or the particular month he went past Kasparov. Also the bit about "2nd youngest GM, now 3rd youngest" was rather wordy. They're all somewhat interesting, but it can't all go in the lead, especially when other aspects of his career (like world championships) are almost entirely omitted. So I thought 1 paragraph on rating and one on world championships was reasonable. The withdrawl in 2010 was pretty major because he was favourite, though I'm not going to press the issue without support from other editors.

As for blitz champion, if it goes in it shouldn't be in the lead paragraph. See WP:MOSBEGIN, note it says not to be overly specific in 1st paragraph. Perhaps after mention of the World Championship? Adpete (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I trimmed the lead a bit. What do you think about its present state? Please note that I have been planning for months to shorten it (by removing the 2013 Candidates Tournament from it) once the 2013 World Chess Championship is over, so this will also help reduce its length. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good compromise :) You've reduced the amount of detail on rating, which was my main concern. Carlsen will almost certainly win the WC now, so it'll need a little rewrite when that happens, obviously. Adpete (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

One problem that I've just noticed in this lead is that it says, "His peak rating is 2872", and later it says, "Carlsen reached an Elo rating of 2861". What should be done with the word "Elo"? Should it be used in both passages, in the first only, or in neither? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I would use it in the first passage but not the second, since the term is wikilinked in the first instance; the person who gets thrown off by "Elo" can click it to find out what it means. I'd make the change myself, but since you brought up the issue I'll defer to you. In my copyedits I think I noticed at least one place in the article where ratings are informally referred to "Elo" rather than "Elo rating"; from the viewpoint of accessibility by a general audience that might not a good choice. Cobblet (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the chess career section of his page is becoming a bit long and unwieldy - it has 11 sections already, and growing with every year. Maybe 2004-2007 could be condensed into one "Early career" section. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.65.253.153 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, although the section "Childhood" covers what most would describe as Carlsen's "early career". Let's see what others think of this. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Much of the information is useful but I agree the prose is rather unwieldy. I've mentioned the idea before: would it possible to present career tournament data for chess players in tabular form at the end of the article or in a split-off article, like we do for other sportspeople? It would reduce the amount of detail that's bogging down the text. Cobblet (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy, have I seen the many sections and additions that people want to see in the future. I think his recent app on iOS, Play Magnus should be addressed. Aaronaraujo2013 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This (and I assume other articles on chess) uses a point system that is opaque, e.g., (+7−0=6). A reader is not given a link (as far as I can see) to an explanation of this. Oh, we could go to Chess and hope to find something there -- but this is ignoring the real value of hypertext or the old world of footnotes with explanations. 211.225.34.163 (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is only one sentence abot his school life and education: "After finishing primary school, Carlsen took a year off to participate in international chess tournaments held in Europe during the fall season of 2003."

He is 24 years old now (January 2015) and is he only finished primary school? I guess, there must be section about his education, in the article. (88.227.202.57 (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC))

A Chessbase article (reporting a Der Spiegel interview) dated 2010 mentions him going to a sport school the previous year. I'll see what I can do. Thanks for mentioning it. Jkmaskell (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've edited it now. Other sources say he quit, rather than completed secondary education. Looking at it, secondary education in Norway is mandatory to 16, therefore it was optional either way. I don't think it makes a great deal of difference. Hopefully there will be a bit more clarity in the future, but this isn't a major problem. Jkmaskell (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be skirmish over the rating table on this page. I'm with the anons. Similar to Hou Yifan, the table could be replaced by a paragraph without harm. The ratings information can be gleaned of the FIDE website already. I suggest we remove the ratings table. Jkmaskell (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to find the ratings table on FIDE but all I can find is something that requires a login. If there is another link, could it be included in the regular page or talk page? If a FIDE login is required, having the information on Wikipedia would be nice. 89.253.113.251 (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Magnus Carlsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/carlsen-catches-aronian-in-last-round-tal-memorial

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me as to why there seems to be ambiguity about the current FIDE ratings of chess players (not just Magnus Carlsen). The ratings are clearly stated in their January 2016 list (https://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men), and I find myself unable to correct the numbers on the players' Wikipedia pages accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retention7 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Same problem exists today. The rating is wrong but cannot be corrected. The month has even correctly changed from "November" to "December", but the rating was not updated accordingly. Anyone who knows how this can be corrected? Where is the source code, and does the program actually run? --Jhertel (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see that the rating has been updated now, but the problem could well still exist. --Jhertel (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magnus Carlsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131124212658/http://en.chessbase.com/post/chennai-g10-magnus-carlsen-is-the-new-world-champion to http://en.chessbase.com/post/chennai-g10-magnus-carlsen-is-the-new-world-champion

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello all. I was wondering: "selected" by whom? Could we make this section something like VS 2700+ GM? (and add eventually notable exceptions)TY 37.182.19.42 (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Why was this important section removed? 50.79.227.209 (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:CHESS. I don't particularly agree with it. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see any discussion about it at WT:CHESS. I can't think of any reason why someone would eliminate that section: it was one of the most useful sections in the article. Chess researchers of all levels used that section frequently: it was an excellent resource. Who in the world would delete that, and why? I hereby move that we reinstate it immediately. Chillowack (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It was discussed many times, never favorably for this type of section (many things that make it problematic for an encyclopedia), but those discussions unfortunately have to be found in the archives. This is the most recent such discussion. Just saying 'it's useful' isn't really a valid argument. --SubSeven (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Magnus Carlsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017210329/http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4001276 to http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4001276
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090901051828/http://www.nhchess.quinsy.net/ to http://nhchess.quinsy.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not see a need for the opening section to be shortened, but will start a discussion here regarding the recent edits. Hrodvarsson (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"I do not see a need" - are you kidding me? The FIRST SENTENCE of the lead says Carlsen is a "NORWEGIAN chess grandmaster" and that he received his GM tittle at "the age of 13 years and and 148 days." Therefore, THE ONLY THING your long and unnecessary sentence adds is WHEN he started playing chess and WHEN he entered his first tournament. This information does NOT BELONG in the lead. The last paragraph changes I made include CARLSEN'S OWN COMMENTS reading his play style. HIS OWN COMMENTS are far more significant than some unknown and weaker GM describing Carlsen. Now do you understand why my edit are far superior to yours? Divergence5 (talk) 7:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Hrodvarsson, Don't answer this. An administrator will be looking into the matter.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 03:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Hrodvarsson and User:Myk_Streja, Please answer this. Divergence5 (talk) 7:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please answer what? "Now do you understand why my edit are far superior to yours?" I do not know how to answer that as it is a very loaded question. To the rest of your comment, yes, the first two sentences gave a basic introduction of who he is, then the other three paragraphs give a summary of the body of the article. The first paragraph gives a summary of the "Childhood" section, his early career, as well as detail on the "Rating achievements" section. The second paragraph gives a summary of his career since he became World Champion. The last paragraph gives a summary of the "Playing style" section. Your addition to the opening which adds a quote by Carlsen on his play should be included in the playing style section before you consider adding it to the opening, as significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Although since you refer to Timman as "unknown", I do not know if you are just trolling. Hrodvarsson (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The age at which Carlsen learned to play chess has absolutely zero significance in regards to his professional chess career. It should not be in the lead. Do you care when Usain Bolt learned to walk? Do you care when Michael Phelps got in a pool for the first time? Why isn’t that information in the leads of those two men?

On to the next point: the first sentence states that Carlsen is Norwegian. Good luck arguing that the specific town he grew up in is necessary information in the lead!

Considering Carlsen was a chess prodigy it is quite relevant when he was introduced to the game and when he played in his first tournament. Where he was born is also relevant as his birthplace has very little chess history, aiding comprehension of Carlsen as chess prodigy. Hrodvarsson (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The lead should read as follows:

Sven Magnus Øen Carlsen (Norwegian: [sven ˈmɑŋnʉs øːn ˈkɑːɭsn̩]; born 30 November 1990) is a Norwegian chess grandmaster and the current World Chess Champion. A chess prodigy, Carlsen earned his grandmaster title at the age of 13 years and 148 days. He surpassed an Elo rating of 2800 in 2009 and reached No. 1 in the FIDE rankings in 2010, becoming the youngest person ever to achieve those feats.

Carlsen became World Champion in 2013 by defeating Viswanathan Anand. In the subsequent year, he retained his title against Anand, won both the 2014 World Rapid Championship and World Blitz Championship, thus becoming the first player to simultaneously hold all three titles, and reached a peak rating of 2882, the highest in history. In 2016, he defended his title against Sergey Karjakin.

Known for his attacking style as a teenager, Carlsen has since developed into a universal player. He uses a variety of openings to make it more difficult for opponents to prepare against him and reduce the effect of computer analysis. He has stated the middlegame is his favourite part of the game as it "comes down to pure chess." His positional mastery and endgame prowess have drawn comparisons to those of former World Champions Bobby Fischer, Anatoly Karpov, Vasily Smyslov, and José Raúl Capablanca.

Divergence5 (talk)

Yes, I am aware of what your preferred version is. You have edit warred over it for months. Hrodvarsson (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

And you respond to NONE of my points? LOL. Time to change it. Divergence5 (talk)

I responded, you did not respond to my counterarguments. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I had a couple of suggestions as well and I am not sure if this is the right place to make them but I believe there should be a little bit more about his rapid and blitz achievements in the lead. Not only in the classical chess, he has achieved the highest ELO ratings of all time in rapid and blitz. Granted that is because those ratings didn't exist prior to a few years ago, but it's still very significant and amongst the top highlights of his chess career since this makes him the highest rated player of all time in every time control. Another and the more important point, his World Rapid and Blitz Championship Titles: they only come second to his classical chess World Championship victories and this part is severely undermentioned in the lead. Two World Rapid and three World Blitz titles warrant a mention in the lead at least, if not the part about him being the highest rated player of all time in every time control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elloffen (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

More could be added on his rapid and blitz achievements, yes. Hrodvarsson (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "Carlsen has won two World Rapid and three and World Blitz Championships, while attaining the highest ratings in the history of both formats, making him the highest rated player of all time in every format." But I am sure you can come up with a better version. He is widely regarded as the strongest speed chess player and he is unbeaten in tie breaks since 2007. I believe we can expand upon that in the section of "Playing style" because as of now the article doesn't talk a lot about his speed chess abilities, which are unparalleled so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elloffen (talk • contribs) 09:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If you could add information from reliable sources discussing Carlsen's playing style in fast chess that would be appreciated. Currently the rating section mentions he is No. 1 in both rapid and blitz but more could be added that he also holds the highest ratings ever in both. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard with the highest-ever-in-all-of-history stuff. These ratings are still so new. Mentioning his blitz and rapid championships , and that he's currently ranked #1 in all 3, would be fair. --SubSeven (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oceanh: Hello, can you further explain your placement of the dubious tag? I do not understand your concern based on the edit summary. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok: I would recommend a reformulation of the tagged sentence, which as it stands is a bit misleading. Ref the edit summary, "At the age of 8, when Carlsen started playing tournaments, he lived in Lommedalen in Bærum, not in Tønsberg". Carlsen became known as the chess prodigy from Lommedalen, which is located only a few kilometers from NTG at Nadderud, where he eventually was trained by Torbjørn Ringdal Hansen and Simen Agdestein. So I think the sentence maybe should be changed so that it does not mix his birthplace (Tønsberg) with the place he lived when he started to play (tournament) chess (Bærum). Having said that, I would like to add that the article generally is of a high quality, and you are doing an excellent job in maintaining and improving the quality. Oceanh (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the elaboration and the compliment. I will remove the "Native to" bit in that case, and leave the detail about birthplace and other places of residence during his early life to the childhood section. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

He is more often perceived as hailing from Lommedalen, cf. search results in Retriever: 61 hits for "Magnus Carlsen fra Lommedalen" and 6 hits for "Magnus Carlsen fra Tønsberg". I am mostly interested in the categorization, and currently he is categorized as being "from" both locations which is fine. Geschichte (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we can make a good case for WP:IAR here, i.e. "if a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, then ignore it". Directly linking to an interactive board when discussing a chess game enhances the encyclopedia rather than detracting from it. Yes, chessgames.com is a commercial site, but no registration or subscription is required to use the interactive board and it is a convenient way to link to individual chess games. Overly strict interpretation of WP:ELPOINTS is not helpful to the encyclopedia in this case. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not seeing a reason to ignore the rule. One issue with having external links embeddeded in prose is that it tricks the reader into thinking they are going to another wikipedia page, but they are getting redirected to another website; one which we have no control over. Is there any reason why these links should be there and not in a dedicated external link section? The whole section has issues (undue/OR) so maybe the best solution would be to incorporate the games into career and move the links to there own sub heading under the External Links section. AIRcorn (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think incorporating the games will be feasible for most chess bios as they would take up a disproportionate amount of space. In this case, where the subject has a sub-section dedicated to each year of his career, the games could be integrated into the relevant section, as the Ernst game currently is. Citing chessgames.com is not a problem IMO (it is a reputable site), and the links to the games are of use to the reader. But there is a discussion about adding a widget that would probably make the link to chessgames obsolete, see WT:CHESS#wikidata chess games DB. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been moved to External Links Noticeboard since it has wide implications beyond this article for WP:CHESS. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The section itself seems problematic. Just a random list of games. Any games that are so significant that they warrant a place in the prose, that's where they should be. We already have an EL to Carlsen's Chessgames profile, which itself has a 'Notable Games' section. --SubSeven (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The games are not all random, although the reasons for selecting some of them can certainly be disputed. For example, two are games that Carlsen described as among his best games, and that makes them noteworthy. Prose isn't a good solution for notable games because a prose description of a chess game doesn't tell you very much, game scores are more important. This is a natural application for a list, an idea that is as old or older than the Ten Commandments. Quale (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. This is a BLP article in a general encyclopedia. Information should be imparted through words, not game scores. "Carlsen won the Bilbao tournament in 2012 with a +3 score. His Round 9 victory over Anand, in which he cramped Anand with a positional pawn sacrifice, is considered by Carlsen to be one of his all-time best games. (cite Carlsen saying that)". Something like that is all that needs to be said. A list of games is indiscriminate, leave that stuff to Chessgames. --SubSeven (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course there will always be subjectivity in such lists, but as long as inclusion can be justified by reference to a reliable source (e.g. Game of the Year candidate in Chess Informant or NIC, inclusion in notable books etc), then it is by definition not indiscriminate. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This is still OR. We as editors, are deciding what is notable. Secondary sources should do that. AIRcorn (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This should be discussed further at WT:CHESS, as hundreds of chess bios have "notable games" sections. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Its fine to discuss this at a wikiproject, but it needs to be grounded in community norms. Original research is a policy and cannot be overridden by individual Wikiprojects. AIRcorn (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand that but as this pertains to a larger issue than just the section on this article, further discussion is more appropriate to WT:CHESS. If a consensus were to be reached there, it could apply to all chess bios, including this one. Possibly the discussion at WT:CHESS should be mentioned at a relevant noticeboard to gain wider attention. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I can agree to that. I did not realise how widespread this was until after I commented here. I would let the discussion at the external links noticeboard run its course first and then if an agreement cannot be reached the next step is probably a RFC. AIRcorn (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)