Talk:Tata Steel Chess Tournament

Chess High‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

old talk

Given that it hasn't always been sponsored by Corus, would this be better at Wijk aan Zee chess tournament (with Corus chess tournament as a redirect)? --Camembert

Don't forget that it was held at Beverwijk from 1938-67.--217.155.205.64 14:10, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ah, good point. I suppose the current name is as good as any, then. --Camembert

The Russian Wikipedia lists all winners since 1938 (with the exception of 1945 for obvious reasons). Should we do that too? Andries 18:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you name the winners for 2007 you have to remember that first comes Aronian then only Radjabov since Aronian's Elo coefficient is higher and second, their individual meeting brought victory to Aronian. Aronian is the only one in the tournament who did not lose a single match. I do not mind if Topalov is listed first since his individual score is the best. If we consider all three of them equal winners ( I am not sure how it works in this tournament) then Aronian should be mentioned first because of the alphabetical order. ArmenianNY

Official word from Corus is that there is no tiebreak. For the record, Kramnik also did not lose any games in the tournament. SubSeven 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is not tiebreak then three of them are considered to be the winners. In that case Aronian's name should be placed first, Radjabov second and Topalov third according to alphabetical order of the first letters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArmenianNY (talk • contribs).

Are you kidding me? I don't think Wikipedia is a good place for you to be. SubSeven 10:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is none of your business to decide where I have to be or I can be.Ok? Nobody is kidding and thats the way it should be. When today all the Azerbaijani newspapers declare that Radjabov is the winner of the tournament without even mentioning that he is one of three of the winners, you do not call them and tell them that they were kidding. Therefore, mind your business and dont stick you nose in other people's comments. You have to say something then go ahead and write down. And next time if i receive something like this in the discussion place I will report it as an obvious abuse.

Take a few deep breaths and read WP:NPOV. And if you want me to call the Azerbaijani newspaper, I will. SubSeven 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category ratings

It would be nice to include the category ratings for the strengths of the tournaments since those ratings were established. Does anyone know where we can get that information? (Of course we should explain the ratings too. I'm not sure we have any pages that do that.) Quale 15:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year of Name Switch

According to http://coruschess.com/tournament.php, the tournament continued to be called "Hoogovens Wijk aan Zee" up until 2002, when it finally switched over. I've modified the article to match up with this. Smyslov (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Steel Chess

We need to move this article to "Tata Steel Chess tournament" with "Corus chess tournament" redirecting there. -Abhishikt 20:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

agreed. Andries (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Since this is an article about the historical chess tournament, always at Wijk Aan Zee but with different naming sponsors over the years, I think it should be called something like Wijk aan Zee chess tournament. For instance, the Melbourne Cup (Australia's most famous horse race) is currently called the "Emirates Melbourne Cup" (as seen on the official site here[1]) but the article is still called Melbourne Cup. Adpete (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was rejected in old talk. Andries (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've seen it called "Wijk aan Zee" most often in print. And that is constant, whereas the name of the sponsor changes. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Tata Steel" seems to be the official name of the tournament now, so let's stick with that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this talk page seems pretty old! Tata Steel is locked in as the name now by November 2019, and it's been hosted in India for at least a few years now, though that research is for someone else, it is November not January this year and certainly not in in Wijk aan Zee anymore in the Netherlands. TaoPhoenix (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in my Melbourne Cup example, the official name is not the only issue. Official names can be bought by sponsors. That said, Hoogovens, Corus and Tata are all sort of the same company (via mergers and takeovers). On the other hand, the tournament is widely known as "Wijk aan Zee" in the chess literature, and I'd have thought that the most common chess usage should prevail. (It is true it was formerly held elsewhere, but for much of that time it was pretty minor, and it became famous as the Wijk aan Zee tournament). What I am saying is that, though I still prefer Wijk aan Zee, my objection is pretty mild and I'm happy to leave it for now. Adpete (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I've flip-flopped. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move cross tables to separate articles?

We'd better move the cross tables 1983-2020 in the article to separate entries, like the Russian, Dutch and Ukranian Wiki have done, see (for example) Tata Steel-toernooi 2020. All these details make the page unclear. Vysotsky (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I was also thinking about that. Around 80% from this page are cross tabels, that's too much. Sneeuwvlakte (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Greenman (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Started with Tata Steel Chess Tournament 2021. I will not continue in the next days, to await reactions. Vysotsky (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I agree that now crosstables take up too much of the article and this is not good. However, I believe that separate articles are not needed for these tournaments, because no information other than tables will be there. Nobody will support individual articles and the articles will be empty and abandoned (this is exactly what is happening now in other language editions of Wikipedia you mentioned). I created 100 percent of these tables myself and know that I will not continue to do this if they become separate articles. Moreover, the main convenience of having all tables on one page is that you can do, for example, Ctrl+F "Eljanov" and immediately see all his participation in tournaments. What is the use of separate articles - I do not know. They are inconvenient and pointless. What I suggest is to put all tables in a collapsible/expandable element with a show/hide button. Alternatively, create one separate article “Tata Steel Chess Tournament Crosstables”. This does not require a lot of work, unlike your suggestion, and retains all the advantages of the current variant. icekolobok (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The process of splitting has already started, but to respond to your points, although the article had not yet reached the size limit, it's not feasible to keep adding text to the same page, hidden or not. At some point, it will have to be split. I'm not sure what you base your assertion on that nobody will support individual articles any more than the same text in the main article, which also goes long periods without being untouched. This is reasonable, as the it's a historical event, so does not need frequent updating. Also, Wikimedia Commons has a great collection of images for many of the years, and already some of these have been added to the individual articles. Greenman (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I agree with User:Greenman. The main article was really off balance, and a split-up was needed, because the article became unreadable. Moreover, separate articles per year are fit to give more background, photographs and chess diagrams, and are in that way very convenient and reader-friendly. Vysotsky (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I also disagree with moving these crosstables to their own articles, as there is nothing more to add to these articles. If one of these tournaments is independently notable in some specific way, they can be moved out to their own article, but most of these (I presume) are routine super tournaments. I was considering merging them back into here, before I found this discussion. If there are concerns of this page getting too long, there could be a separate article with all the crosstables. Natg 19 (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The arguments against separate articles are not new nor very strong. There are several dozens articles on chess tournaments per year on Wiki: Zürich 1934 chess tournament & 1953; Vienna 1908 chess tournament & 3 other years; Carlsbad 1929 chess tournament & 3 o.; London 1899 chess tournament a.o., just to name a few. The Wijk aan Zee Tournament is not considered a routine tournament, as Russian & Ukranian Wiki show, with their articles per year. I don't propose to start an article on every year of this or any other chess tournament, but the current modus operandi looks far better than inclusion of the crosstables back into the overview article or have a list of all crosstables in one separate article. Vysotsky (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Such articles are unlikely to meet WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vysotsky, Greenman, Sneeuwvlakte, It's been a year since you suggested redesigning the page. Are you satisfied with the results? icekolobok (talk) 3:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

24 done, 16 to go. We're getting somewhere Thanks for the stimulus. Vysotsky (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vysotsky, Greenman, Sneeuwvlakte, two years later, everything looks unfinished and abandoned. icekolobok (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I was busy with other things, like this and this. I will work on it in 2023. Vysotsky (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anand

"Viswanathan Anand is the only other player to have won the event five or more times, and also holds the record of most consecutive games played at the tournament without a loss (7 – from 1998 to 2004)."

Most consecutive games? Not most consecutive tournaments? A3811 (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]