Talk:Magnus Carlsen/Archive 2

Can someone explain why this useless piece of information is in the lead?

"Carlsen was introduced to chess at the age of five and played in his first tournament at the age of eight"

--Divergence5 (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Divergence5

I agree that this doesn't look like lead-section material (I'm looking at MOS:LEAD.) These facts are presented in the Childhood section, so I wouldn't call them "useless", but unless I'm missing something, perhaps you could remove them from the lead section. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This is something Divergence5 has edit warred over for a year or so, on-and-off. I answered the question 6 months ago, stating that the detail is relevant to Carlsen's status as a chess prodigy, and it serves as a summary of the childhood section. Arguably the lead should be expanded as it quite stubby compared to other high-profile chess bios. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

What I was thinking was, the lead is supposed to (among other things) summarize what is notable about the subject, but there is nothing particularly notable these days about a kid learning chess at 5 and playing in his first tournament at 8 (there must be tens or hundreds of thousands of kids in the U.S. who fit that description).

Of course, I don't want to jump into the middle of some dispute. I will try to take a closer look at the lead section and figure out how his childhood prodigy-ness might be summarized. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

After a little more reading, I agree that the lead section needs to be expanded, but I wouldn't go back further than his tie for 1st in the World Under-12. High points would be major tournaments that he won, and possibly his getting the GM title; for a model, I'm looking at the lead section of Bobby Fischer. I won't get around to it tonight, but would hope to draft something soon. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Your input is appreciated. I think, along with the tied-first placing at the 2002 World U12s, the win at Wijk aan Zee in 2004 could replace the first line as it was a major tournament success before he became a GM. Similar to Fischer's article, the Norwegian championship victory at age 15 also could flesh out the second paragraph of the lead. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, it probably needs polishing, but may be more interesting to the casual reader.

I am not comfortable with the stuff about his rating. This is because I am a dinosaur. The chess press is always talking about ratings, so I guess in Wikipedia we can't ignore them, but I personally don't follow the ratings of the leading players; only the tournament results (of which the ratings are a bare summary) are worth remembering. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"stating that the detail is relevant to Carlsen's status as a chess prodigy, and it serves as a summary of the childhood section" this is not an intelligent comment. As another user stated, "there is nothing particularly notable these days about a kid learning chess at 5 and playing in his first tournament at 8." The lead should discuss Carlsen's chess achievements, nothing else. --Divergence5 (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Divergence5

You removed the sentence about Carlsen's winning Corus at age 17, but your edit summary only says "fixed". Could you say a little more about why you made this edit? Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the Corus 2008 mention belongs in the lead and it was worded well, so I put it back as it was. The brief mention of his rating that was added is also good for the lead, so I left that undisturbed. Quale (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: to Bruce. I think setting the highest rating in history is a very notable achievement of Carlsen's, even if you take into account the rating inflation in recent decades. This detail could even be mentioned in the first paragraph. (It would also serve as a more notable achievement in the description Google automatically pulls from Wikipedia—currently, if you google him it states "Sven Magnus Øen Carlsen is a Norwegian chess grandmaster and the current World Chess Champion. A chess prodigy, Carlsen tied for first place in the World Under-12 Championship in 2002.") An achievement such as winning Wijk aan Zee a record six times also probably warrants inclusion in the lead. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for editing. I dealt with Hrodvarsson for over a year on this. He refused to acknowledge he was wrong. Cheers! --Divergence5 (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Divergence5

I think you are overestimating my attachment to an uncontroversial sentence in a Wikipedia article. If you had avoided the edit warring and discussed on the talk page reasonably it could have been easily settled as it has been now, and with more detail added to the lead for good measure. But again, if someone editing a chess-related article describes Timman as "unknown" they are likely just trolling. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your subsequent edits. I figured that someone who was already familiar with Carlsen's career and with this article could probably make many improvements to my rough draft.

As I said, I don't want to jump in to the dispute. I am glad that Divergence5 was pleased with the editing. I don't much care whose "fault" the protracted difficulty was. Thanks to all. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone describing Timman as an unknown doesn't know much about chess, although it might be somewhat perversely deserved. Timman, writing about Milan Vidmar: "The Vidmar Memorial Tournament is held every two years. For some reason or other, the fifth of the series, in 1979, attracted me immediately. Not that I have ever played through a game of Vidmar's - at least, never a game he won; but probably I have seen a number of his losses printed among the collected games of Alekhine, Capablanca, and Euwe. Frankly, this splendid tournament is a rather exaggerated mark of honour for a not very brilliant chess player." Quale (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Calling it "trolling" isn't exactly assuming good faith though is it? Nor is bringing it up a year after the event. Just unhelpful all round. We are all ignorant, we just differ in the things we are ignorant about. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this a statistic that the chess press mentions and cares about? I do not recall seeing it, but I could have missed it. If we are taking note of statistics that the rest of the world doesn't take note of, that's kind of like Original Research. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not think they talk about it in terms of months, but it is mentioned in years a bit. I remember Carlsen himself saying in one of the WC press conferences that he considers his reign as world #1 to be as impressive as holding the WC title. Saying that, I did not add the line and I am not opposed to its removal, as it is still a long way off Kasparov's and likely will require an update every month. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This may not be important enough for the lede. In any case, I would prefer a more permanent statement, rather than a piece of data that will become quickly outdated.--Gorpik (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

His reign at number one is cared about and followed, for example https://www.chess.com/news/view/caruana-takes-sinquefield-lead-world-1-ranking-at-stake-tomorrow. However, it cannot be listed in the current way, which will become outdated every month, so I suggest changing the wording to something like "Carlsen first reached the top of the FIDE Classical Rankings in January 2010, and trails only Garry Kasparov at time spent on the top of the rankings." Greenman (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thoughts on moving the line to the second paragraph? It would fit better there and allow an elimination of repetition ("Carlsen first reached the top of the FIDE Classical Rankings in January 2010" & "reached number one in the FIDE world rankings in 2010"). It would probably need an "As of [year]" clause, but a yearly update is not as much of a problem as a monthly update. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to get rid of the repetition. But the 2nd paragraph seems to be about his being a prodigy, rather than about what records he holds. Perhaps in the 2nd paragraph, shorten the last sentence: "He surpassed a rating of 2800 in 2009, becoming the youngest ..." Bruce leverett (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Most weeks at number one is a fairly trivial statistic. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

True, it would not quite work with the chronology. I will just reword the rankings detail in the second paragraph to focus on the age rather than year it was achieved, as that reduces the repetition a bit. It could be removed altogether but I feel that it is notable and the rating detail is tied to it. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Magnus Carlsen vs. Fabiano Caruana, WCh 2018, 6 game.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Winter did the research so we don't have to... the original was "Find plannen", volume 2 of Larsen's "Skak Skole" series, published in Danish in 1975. (Presumably Norwegian and Danish are similar enough that the Carlsens could get the gist of it). It has 65 pages... I think that qualifies it as a "book", I've got shorter books than that. See Chess Notes 8935. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Toddst1 Have Carlsen's representatives (or those of his app Play Magnus) complained to Wikimedia or yourself about English Wikipedia's prior inclusion of his date of birth? This is the only condition under which WP:DOB would apply, as Carlsen isn't "borderline notable" (rather, a celebrity in Norway), and BLP sourcing is not an issue as both his personal website and countless WP:RS articles on the 2016 World Chess Championship have mentioned his birthday. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

No, and not true. Basic wp:blp requirements apply here. However you can restore the DOB with a reliable source if you have one. That’s how things work here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

THe DOB has been restored, and a source added. This can be found in just about any nationwide Norwegian media site. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, until a source could be found in the article, including the info was not cool. Thanks for adding it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Any particular reason for this? It'd be nice to order by most wins/losses/draws... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.62.32 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

A table showing championships would be helpful. Today he won the World Blitz Championship again, and he also holds the Classical and Rapid championships, as well as the FIDE World Championship. Another table could show his standings in tournaments. Wastrel Way (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Eric

I can't find any Wikipedia-independent mention that there was a tie in the ranking. This page, referenced by the article of the first place, sees him second. With the same score, but still second. Britannica sees him second. Our article about the championship only lists Ian Nepomniachtchi as winner. Suggestion: We replace "tied for first place" by "achieved the second place". --mfb (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

What we are currently saying is "In the following month, he tied for first place in the World Under-12 Championship in Heraklio, placing second to Ian Nepomniachtchi on tiebreak." This is factually correct, and consistent with what we say in the biography of Nepomniachtchi, and it would be OK just to leave it alone. But if you feel the emphasis is not right, you might say something like, "... he achieved the same score as the winner, Ian Nepomniachtchi, taking second place on tiebreak." Bruce leverett (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I was looking at the lead where that information is not given. It just says "A chess prodigy, Carlsen tied for first place in the World U12 Chess Championship in 2002." which looks like he was first together with someone else. --mfb (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. In fact, we give a link to World Youth Chess Championship, but it doesn't mention his name. Perhaps we should just leave this out of the lead section altogether? Bruce leverett (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I now called it second place as I suggested before, if people think it should be removed from the lead completely that's fine as well. I was just confused by the suggested first place that didn't happen. --mfb (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Since Carlsen is World Champion, it is more or less tautological to say that he is, or is considered to be, "one of the greatest players of all time". We don't need to say that.

Many other articles about world chess champions, such as Bobby Fischer, include words like "... greatest player of all time ...". These cause a lot of argument and edit warring, in return for which they are only of the most modest help to the casual reader. To reduce the edit warring, or at least to cover our rear ends, the editors of Bobby Fischer have included a boatload of citations to references about Fischer's relative greatness. Garry Kasparov also includes such language, but with only one cited reference. Until very recently, Magnus Carlsen has, mercifully, gotten by without such language. If editors are going to insist on talking about Carlsen as a GOAT, they are expected to cite a reliable source, just as you do for everything else in Wikipedia. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought Anand was the greatest of all time? (ducks for cover from the rotten fruit) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I also oppose it's inclusion. It's so lazy and unencyclopedic to just say that in the lede when we have so many other records and achievements that actually demonstrate it and allows the reader to reach their own conclusions. This is an encyclopedia and our main focus should be on presenting the facts. Leave the opinions to the pundits, whom we don't need to be boosting. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice nowhere is it stated Carlsen is the "GOAT" instead just making the simple observation that he is one of the greatest, as he is universally considered and as is stated in virtually every other wiki for all time great players (Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Alekhine, Capablanca etc) and not just in chess (see football, basketball, tennis virtually every sport) But Bzweebl and Bruce are vehemently against affording Carlsen this acclaim for their personal reasons. Exxcalibur808 (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I'd be in favour of removing these references from the Fischer and Kasparov articles too. They're just not helpful or informative, the players. achievements speak for themselves. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because we've done something in the past doesn't mean we should continue to do so. I oppose the inclusion of such observations in all chess player articles. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, in which one contributor says "I think Lasker was the greatest", and another contributor says, "No, Capablanca", and so on. It is an encyclopedia. Actual statements of who was the greatest, or even who was "one of the greatest", are utterly forbidden, see WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:PUFFERY. This is true, even if the statement is taken from some normally reliable source, such as Barden. Encyclopedias just do not do that. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I too oppose this verbiage. Stating his world championships is sufficient. Pikavoom (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Consider, in 2020 results, linking to the Skilling Open page, which now exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.88.145 (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I noticed that Carlsen's record for longest unbeaten streak is included in the lead but is not mentioned in the body. Could the details be added to the body of the article? For instance, how many wins and draws and total games made up the streak? (125 total, 42 wins, 83 draws, which I had to go look up elsewhere) Also, per MOS:LEAD, the lead should only summarize the body of the article and it is therefore inappropriate to have an orphaned statement such as that in the lead of a good article. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

As the first month of 2021 is drawing to a close what should we write about Magnus Carlsen for the first part of 2021? Right now from the time of writing Magnus Carlsen had a very fluctuating start into 2021 especially his relatively bad performance at the Tata Steel tournament (so far), so I believe we should definitely include this. Do you guys have anything else that is worth adding about Magnus's start into 2021?

-Iloveguppy 12:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the choice of colours in his results table can be improved. In particular I think: the Grand Chess Tour does not deserve its own colour, world championship events should stand out more, and there should be a clear distinction between classical and non-rated chess. So I think the colours should be:

• Green: World championship events (standard time controls)
• White: other standard time control events (i.e. rated chess)
• Grey: non-rated chess, i.e. rapid, blitz, FisherRandom, internet chess.
• If we want to use a 4th colour (the yellow-ish currently used for the Grand Chess Tour), it could be used for world championships in non-rated chess (rapid, blitz, Fischerrandom).

Thoughts? Adpete (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like GCT colour was added here [1] Adpete (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that

• FischerRandom OTB events (like Saint-Louis and World Championships) should have a different colour from Internet Chess and from other world championships
• GCT Rapid and blitz, like other OTB blitz and rapid tournaments are FIDE rated events (blitz and rapid ratings). They could have a different colour from the (classical) Sinquefield Cup and other classical tournaments.
• Online (unrated) tournaments should be kept with their distinct (grey) colour.

--Cbigorgne (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

How many different colours (including white) are you suggesting? There are 4 currently, and I am also suggesting 4. Adpete (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest five colours :

• white : classical OTB (including olympiads and other classical team competitions)
• green : world OTB (individual) championships (classical, rapid and blitz) and World Cups
• grey : online unrated tournaments
• fourth colour : rapid, blitz and mixed OTB tournaments (including Norway Blitz, Tal Memorial blitz and Zurich mixed Rapid and blitz competitions)
• fith colour : FischerRandom competitions, could also include blindfold competitions (like Amber chess tournament)

--Cbigorgne (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

That's an improvement on the current scheme. I think a good start is removing the colour for GCT, because to me that is just another set of tournaments.

But I think the most important distinction should be between classical (standard time control) and other chess, because it is classical chess which is what counts towards a player's rating and is what is usually meant when talking about performance. I realise some tournaments have a mix of classical and rapid/blitz/armageddon (e.g. World Cup, the recent Norway tournament), but I still think they count as "mainly" classical. So within the scheme you propose, I would like the "green" split into classical world championships and rapid/blitz; perhaps two different shades of green.

Personally I think your last 3 colours could all be merged into one, because otherwise there are just so many colours possible. Given that internet is always or nearly always faster time controls anyway... is your distinction between the 3rd (online) and 4th (rapid etc) that the latter one counts towards the rapid/blitz rating? Adpete (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

My distinction is double : Online/Over-the- board(OTB) and unrated/rated. I also think that the distinction Rapid-Blitz / Classical is important.--Cbigorgne (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

How is this then, only a slight modification of yours:

• green: world championships (not counting World Cups and Grand Swiss which he played "for practice")
• white: all other classical chess (including tournaments which are only partially classical).
• light grey: rated rapid/blitz
• darker grey: internet and any other unrated chess
• straw coloured (currently used for GCT): variants: Fischerrandom, blindfold, also anything else strange like computer-aided chess or consultation.

Like I said, personally I think the two most important are standard versus faster time controls/variants; and World championships versus anything else; because I think the two most likely things a reader will do are (a) check his "real chess" results, and (b) check for his world championships. But as a compromise - because it would still be a big improvement on what we have now - we can split rapid/blitz, internet and variants into 3 different colours; and ditch my suggestion of a lighter green for world championships in non-classical chess. I think the only ambiguity then is what colour the Fisherrandom world championships fit into; I would probably say green but straw is also ok. Adpete (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Today (19 October), I have made a change, replacing GCT tournaments (colour : "PapayaWhip") by "Non-classical rated tournaments" ; You can see the change and revert it. One modification is that Sinquefield Cups, 2019 Zagreb GCT Classical and 2015 Norway Chess return in white (classical rated tournaments)--Cbigorgne (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Today (22 October), I changed the color Papayawhip by Lavender, which, I think, is lighter.--Cbigorgne (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

What is "Linadore"? I just did a google search for it and found nothing. I see some "Lindores Abbey" tournaments here, but not blitz. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Bruce leverett:, it was Lindores Abbey Rapid. I have corrected my mistake. Thanks.--Cbigorgne (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

the "Other Business Endevours" says that he's the only chess professional with a full time manager, but according to his own article, Espen Agdestein isn't his manager anymore, I'm not sure of the best way to update it following the MOS.

DirkJandeGeer (щи) 09:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at [2], his father is back to being his manager, and that presumably means he doesn't have a full-time manager. My suggestion would be to just remove the paragraph about him having a full-time manager (and about how much he earned in 2012). The alternative would be to add a sentence about his full-time manager having quit, but I would think that is undue emphasis on marginally notable developments. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Volten0001: Using a Wikilink for Norway is strongly discouraged by MOS:OVERLINK. What is your reason for doing this? Bruce leverett (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: I wasn't satisfied with the reason you stated that Norway is a popular country. Regarding the article on overlinking, I have read it and what I have gathered is that linking popular names or countries too much can lead to overlinking. However, in this case Norway is not. And I have only linked it once in the article. Personally, I wasn't much interested in knowing about the country until I read that Calsen is Norwegian and I wanted to read more about it. My point is, when reading about Magnus Carlsen, you might want to read more about where he comes from and that's why I've included that link. I honestly don't see a problem with it but I'm ready to listen to your opinion as well. Thanks Volten0001 (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@ Bruce leverett There is my honest opinion about the linking Volten0001 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Bruce leverett (talk) Sorry I'm trying to link your username to bring this to your attention Volten0001 (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Norway is not obsucre and should not be linked to. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not a bad thing that your curiosity led you from reading about Carlsen to reading about Norway, but Wikilinks are not there to assist with people's idle curiosity. They are for readers who do not know what the linked thing is; but everybody knows what Norway is. Also, Wikilinks should be used sparingly, not dropped in "just in case", because they are distracting. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright then.. I get your point. No big deal about it Volten0001 (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Your explanation is a bit vague though.I expected you to elaborate on MOS:OVERLINK in relation to linking Norway. And I beg to differ, not everyone knows about Norway. And try to explain politely. Stop talking about 'Idle curiosity' as you call it 'cause I didn't like it. Thank you Volten0001 (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Greetings.

I wanted to update his rating as per the official January 2022 rankings. However when I try to do so in the source editing, the section appears empty but when I try to update it, it seems as if I'm adding more content rather than editing it. If you can update it instead on my behalf, that would be awesome.

Someone help me understand the whole thing. The same is evident in the ranking section.

Thank you Volten0001 (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Rating and ranking are automatically updated. Not sure when exactly it runs, but should be soon enough. Greenman (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Greenman Thanks for shedding light on the issue. Appreciate it. Volten0001 (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that sections after #Tournament and match results are not being displayed properly. I am browsing using Safari on iOS (mobile). Does anyone know why and can fix this?

Thanks, --Ddxfx (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have verified this -- it's not just you. The article looks fine on my home computer (using Edge), but on my cell phone (using Safari), I don't see anything after #Tournament and match results except Categories. But I have no idea what's wrong or how to fix it. Maybe we should submit this to the Teahouse? Bruce leverett (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I took this problem to WP:Help Desk#Article truncated on mobile device, and it's been diagnosed and fixed. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

IQ measures the ability to do IQ tests. It is not, and never has been, culturally neutral, and what exactly it's measuring is ill-defined. Many very intelligent people are poor chess players (e.g. Alan Turing), and many strong chess players have a below average IQ. I remember some study they did in Germany of a sample of strong chess players (about 2100-2300), whom they gave a traditional IQ test. They averaged about 110, indicating only a weak correlation between IQ score and chess ability. I liked Stephen Hawking's response when asked what his IQ was. He replied "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQs are losers." MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The majority of experts by far agree that IQ is valid for measuring cognitive abilities.^{[1] [2]} Multiple studies have confirmed IQ testing's validity in predicting academic success.^{[3] [4]}Thespearthrower (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Was this section inadvertently started in the wrong talk page? I don't see anything about IQ in the article about Carlsen. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There has been an recent dispute over the world champion dates in the infobox of this article. I argue (and edited accordingly) that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and cannot predict future events. Although Carlsen has announced that he does not plan to defend his championship in 2023, he is free to change his mind on this topic. Until the World Championship has been contested and a new winner declared, we cannot accurately state that Carlsen will not retain the title. For that matter, world events might preclude the existence of a World Championship Tournament in 2023, thus extending Carlsen's title beyond that date. We just don't know.

I'm pinging @Double sharp:, @Mojje69: and @SmokeyJoe: as editors who have recently edited this data point, but obviously anyone else is invited to join the discussion as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I saw edits without knowing about the declaration to not defend the title. I think the answer is to add a note about the declaration to not defend, and that the end date should not be included until there is a new world champion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That was my thinking. The infobox should state "2013-present" until such time as a new champion is named. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, as either is accurate to the best of our current knowledge. However, I don't think that this falls under WP:CRYSTAL, which is only against unverifiable predictions. After all, it says Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included. I feel like FIDE scheduling a World Championship for 2023 without Carlsen, and chess24 writing "World Chess Champion: 2013-2023" with reference to Carlsen, makes this pretty verifiable. I'd support writing "2013–present^{[note 1]}" or something like that, with a footnote pointing out that Carlsen doesn't intend to defend in 2023; but I'm OK with leaving the footnote out too, since after all "2013–present" is also correct. Double sharp (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

So should there be a section re: Chess Cheating/Hans Moke Neimann/FIDE etc. This is huge news not just the specific actions by Magnus but the impact on Chess in General. FIDE are investigating. Magnus has probably broken rules due to Sinquefield Cup withdrawal etc. Ref: https://www.chess.com/news/view/carlsen-niemann-fide-investigatory-panel KymFarnik (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The subsection, Magnus Carlsen#Sinquefield cup withdrawal, discusses that controversy, and also links to the article Carlsen–Niemann controversy‎. Are you thinking of modifying this, to give more emphasis (or perhaps less)? Bruce leverett (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It is known that Carlsen's relationship with Synne Christin Larsen has ended. See for instance this article. Can anybody perhaps change this in the lemma? I'm a bit insecure about formulation and stuff.

Best regards from the Netherlands, Froukj3 (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Done Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

what do you mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magnus_Carlsen#Love_life Thewriter006 (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

what does lemma mean here? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lemma Thewriter006 (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

How about Elisabet Lorentzen Djønne? https://chessbase.in/news/Magnus-Carlsens-girlfriend-Elisabet-Dj-nne https://www.dagbladet.no/kjendis/kuppet-svindyr-luksusleilighet/72351730 https://gurugamer.com/viral/magnus-carlsen-iq-biography-age-gf-anand-10290 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VaioSun (talk • contribs) 16:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magnus_Carlsen#Love_life Thewriter006 (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is there zilch on his love live? He's had some girlfriends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, for starters, WP:NOTGOSSIP. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: Well, what about the love life of thousands of other celebs on wiki? There is documentation of this on Carlsen. Typical of wiki, cherry picking rules to suit your own ends. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, what about the love life of thousands of other celebs on wiki? then take it away from the articles and reference WP:NOTGOSSIP. Typical of wiki, wiki is a platform, it is the community that makes the content, you can make things straight if they are inconsistent. --Pier4r (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

are you the same pier4r from reddit? @Pier4r I'm nicbentulan. Lol. Thewriter006 (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

When does a romantic relationship get into Wikipedia? Seems like Wikipedia wouldn't have any problem if this were say some actor or singer but for a chess player...? Thewriter006 (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

When does a romantic relationship get into Wikipedia? Seems like Wikipedia wouldn't have any problem if this were say some actor or singer but for a chess player...? Thewriter006 (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magnus_Carlsen#Carlsen_relationship Thewriter006 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• If you can provide a reliable source and you can convince the wikipedia community that it's relevant and not WP:UNDUE, then maybe it will be accepted into the article. But the two women who have been linked to him are not notable for anything else, and they'd probably prefer their names to be left out of the article. So I'd be opposed to including any of these details. It would be a different story if he got married. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I perhaps believe that every elite tournament of Meltwater Champions Chess Tour should be updated side by side while the tournament is going on, this would provide users to find info on the tournament not only on Chess.com , Chess 24 but also on Wikipedia SHU KURENAI 23 (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion of this question here on the talk page.

In general, we should adhere to WP:NOTNEWS, which advises us that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style." In editing Magnus Carlsen, we would normally mention his participation in Tata Steel 2023, both because he finished second in a strong and prestigious tournament, and because he is world champion. But we would wait until the tournament was over, and then write only a summary, stating that he finished second, but he lost two games. And that would be all. We should not list the names of the people he beat, nor should we talk about the issue of Ding's rating going under 2800.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the readership of Magnus Carlsen consists mainly of people who are looking up his name because they don't know who he is. It is unrealistic to try to compete with chess.com and chess24 for the attention of people following the latest news. Unlike those websites, we do not have paid journalists who can interview the players, and who can competently analyze their games, and who can do research on the subjects about which they are writing.

By the way, in editing Richard Rapport, I am not sure we should even mention his participation in Tata Steel 2023, because he only finished in the middle of the field, not even getting a plus score. But I could be wrong about this, perhaps experienced editors of chess articles might disagree with me.

Getting back to Magnus Carlsen: because we do not have our own journalists, we are getting our facts from other places, such as chess.com or chess24. We are required to cite those sources. Not only is it necessary for those sources to get credit, but also, it is necessary for readers to be able to find and read the articles that we have read. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett Thank you for clearing my concern about the details as mentioned above , I will try to keep details about other players updated in the same way . SHU KURENAI 23 (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In an interview after the match, Carlsen said he is suffering from a lack of motivation to play classical chess, because of the dominance of opening preparation. Long forced lines made it very difficult to get a real game between the two players, and one needed to find new ideas in even formerly low-theory lines such as the London system.

So did Magnus actually say all that in the second sentence, or did an overenthusiastic editor provide an example they considered relevant? That should be clarified IMHO. – AndyFielding (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

FIrst, the WCC is more significant than the Tata Steel tournament, and also the image shows him more clearly. Jishiboka1 (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this new photo is significantly worse. There's no need to only use the latest photo available, and particularly not if it's a bad one. Even using this one from 2016 seems quite okay. 157.157.164.20 (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the information from the 'Notes: interactive games' tab should be merged with the information from the main 'Notes' tab and then the 'Notes: interactive games' tab should be deleted as in my opinion it is pointless having 2 notes tabs. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Carlsen's peak in both blitz and rapid chess (according to FIDE) is the highest in history but I couldn't find a single mention of it. Isn't that worth of a mention..? Vehvilæinen (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vehvilæinen: feel free to go ahead and add a mention to the article. LittlePuppers (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The fact that it's a record does not imply that it needs to be mentioned in the article. There is no hard-and-fast criterion for what to put into the article and what not to, but one useful criterion is notability. If you can find one or more articles in the chess press (print or online) that mention his record-high blitz and/or rapid ratings, you can mention them in the article, and cite the article(s). On the other hand, if you can't find such an article, chances are the rest of the world just does not care about these high ratings, and mentioning them in the article would be just nerdy. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you are right. It seems that the internet had very little interest in it. However, can't see it as nerdy... Vehvilæinen (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Should this edit by SpyroeBM be reverted?

This matter has been discussed before here:

Talk:Magnus Carlsen/Archive 2#GOAT

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 37#GOAT

Similar statements have been removed from the articles about Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Fischer&diff=1150860407&oldid=1150835367

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Kasparov&diff=1139625710&oldid=1139622414

The edits above were made by MaxBrowne2 and Bruce leverett. Khiikiat (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not have anything to add to the discussion in Talk:Magnus Carlsen/Archive 2#GOAT. By way of clarification, when that discussion took place, there were still "GOAT" statements in the lead paragraphs of Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov, but those have since been removed.

In a nutshell (in case the reader does not want to click through to that discussion), there was consensus that GOAT statements, no matter how carefully supported by citations to references, are generally not helpful things to have in biographies of chess world champions. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)