User talk:Cobblet/Archive 1

I just wanted to compliment you on the very nice improvements you have made to the French Defence article. Welcome to Wikipedia, and keep up the good work! Neilc 20:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you removed the "." from the moves on the French Defence. I'm not overly possessive of them, but they are standard -- and typical throughout the chess articles here and elsewhere. Please consider reverting your changes. Thanks -- and good work. ThreeE 01:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on the reorg you did on the Ruy Lopez. It's a big improvement. 66.191.124.236 04:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work! --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 11:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

--PFHLai 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

MER-C 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

AzaBot 03:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Walkerma 15:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on chess opening page merges. Quale 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my inadvertent replacement of 1.Nf3 with 1.d4. The Oxford Companion to Chess and MCO-14 both have the 1.d4 lines but not the 1.Nf3 line, and when adding this info I accidentally messed up the old 1.Nf3 line. That one needs a cite. Quale 02:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't blame you (or any of chess contributors) for the Aldol condensation unpleasantness. Other random examples drawn from technical fields also drew unwanted attention. I agree that I don't sense any real malice, just an amazing ability to be consistently wrong about almost everything almost all the time, while being long-winded, condescending, and extraordinarily tedious at the same time. At some point, however, ignorance isn't an acceptable excuse, and I think we're well past that point. On business matters, I think putting Category:ECO codes on WP:CFD would be good. Quale 05:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've created a section on the WikiProject chess talk page to discuss how we should categorize Soviet chess players within Category:Chess players by nationality. This was discussed once a long time ago, but the number of chess biographies has exploded since then and I think we should consider it again. I'm interested in what you think, so I invite you to weigh in with your views at WT:CHESS if you like. Quale 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} tag that you removed. We tag all articles in the Category:People from Chicago. If you believe it is consensus that this category should not be on his page you can remove it and then remove the tag on the talk page. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you left it. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm from the german wikipedia and interested in openings. I discovered that 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nge2 followed by 6.Ng3 is called the Hungarian Attack.

Shall we avoid that there are two Hungarian Attacks? :-)WilhelmHH 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you made me laugh. Clearly I should let you handle the technical details, or I should be more careful and actually do some research.... Quale 03:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Forgot something else--you're right about the "drawish at least at the top level" qualifier. I've seen the Berlin suggested as a way for Black to try to win. If the players are of uneven strength the imbalances in the position provide winning chances. I don't think it's decisive at the top levels very often, but again I didn't check. Quale 03:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right about winning chances in so-called drawish lines. It's hard to know what to say about openings since it is so dependent on the strength of the players involved. Few lines are truly drawish when a duffer like me is involved since I'll probably blunder at some point if my opponent doesn't make a mistake first. Restricting the view of the openings to how they are evaluated by elite grandmasters doesn't really give a practical idea of what an opening is like for the average club or tournament player. On the other hand, since we're not an instruction manual, this may be OK. I try to limit my edits to things that I find written references for, but it's clear that references can be out of date and often they reflect the biases of the author rather than any objective truth. Popularity and evaluation of openings are very dependent on fashion, and this can change quickly. P.S. I think I may have applied "logical" to the description of the Berlin because I saw it described in one of the several references I plowed through when updating the Ruy article some time ago. On the other hand, I might not have added that description either (it could be one of the parts that was there before I started working on expanding the article). Quale 15:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Walter. I would like to ask you why you assessed Ed Trice's importance as "Low". I really think a man who created a chess variant and help solve the game of checkers should be more important than that. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 03:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems you merged the pages "Italian Game" and "Giuoco Piano" in May this year. The books I’ve read make a distinction between the Italian Game and the Giuoco Piano; the Italian Game is all play after 3.Bc4, so includes Two knights Defence (3…Nf6) and the Hungarian Defence (3…Be7) while the Giuoco Piano is just the play after 3…Bc5. This also agrees with the wikibook pages on chess openings. In any event the Giuoco Piano page only discusses play after 3…Bc5, so I was intending to open up the Italian Game page again. Do you have any strong objection to this? Moonraker12 12:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the stuff on Italian game (one cap)is now on Italian Game (both caps) (which I certainly think is better); However the Talk pages and Revision Histories don’t match now; is there any way of fixing that? There’s a discussion about this on my talk page(IG para 3,4) already; I re-opened the wrong page, but when tried to move it, it wouldn’t go, presumably because there was content alredy on the IG talk page. Moonraker12 09:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know the Chinese character name of Yang Xian ? Gollenaiven (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Walter, I saw you left the WP:WikiProject Chess so I wanted to say thank you for the tremendous job you did on chess-related articles. You have clearly been an extremely valuable asset for our projet. I hope this departure is only temporary and we will have the pleasure to see you editing on chess again in the future. I wish you all the best! SyG (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)