Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Chess and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:CHESSWT:CHESS

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40: 3 months

WikiProject Chess was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 28 January 2013.

WikiProject Chess
Shortcut: WP:CHESS

Navigation Menu

Assessment statistics

Skip to: the bottom of page to add a new topic or see most recent new topics

Proposed for deletion

House of Staunton has been proposed for deletion, on November 14, 2025. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I disagree, it does kind of look like an ad. There are plenty of companies that make chess sets, what makes this one special? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity Chess Team. Please join.

To all Chess players: There is a Wikiversity Chess Team. Free for all to join. Look at : Wikiversity Team Lichess.org.. See you over the board :) Harold Foppele (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers for anon editors

Sometimes it seems to me that anon editors cause more trouble than they're worth. But then we get gems such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Threefold_repetition&curid=557112&diff=1321755535&oldid=1308248127. Wikimedia doesn't allow sending thanks directly to anon or logged out editors, but thank you to whoever added that nice example to Threefold repetition. Quale (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nimzowitsch "Urtext"

You can find the original German text of "My System", "Chess Praxis", "The Blockade" and other Nimzowitsch writings at this site. Not sure about copyright status or whether it is usable on wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I join this wiki project?

I've been recently curious about joining the wiki project but I don't know how to join any help would be appreciated. Spectralarrow (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I started editing on Wikipedia, I didn't follow any formal procedure for "joining" the project. I just started editing chess-related articles, and also, started paying attention to this talk page, as you have done. By and by, I added my name to the list of participants in WP:CHESS, but I don't think anyone pays much attention to that. There are other good things to do, such as building a "watch list" -- see Help:Watchlist. But my own perspective is probably very limited, even after almost ten years. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Bruce says, there aren't any formal requirements to join WP:CHESS. You can add your name to WP:Chess#Participants, but that's entirely optional. Depending on your interests and what kind of editing you like to do, you can contribute to discussions on this talk page or talk pages for any chess article, find a chess page to improve (you will find them all under Category:Chess) by adding content, correcting mistakes, or Wikignoming to improve compliance with WP:MOS manual of style. As Bruce suggests you can also watch recent changes to chess pages to patrol for vandalism or unhelpful edits, or to find pages that other chess editors are working on and collaborate on those articles or talk pages. If you find a chess topic that should have a page but doesn't yet, you can create a new chess article. Since the project is over 20 years old most general chess subjects already have pages, so most new pages are biographies. (But despite the fact that the chess project is old, many of the chess pages aren't very good and could be greatly improved. There's plenty of work available.) There are a lot of WP:STUB chess bios (Category:Chess people) that could be expanded. Some editors enjoy trying to find images to add to chess pages, especially bios. I don't have experience in that area, but great care is required that the images have a free license. You might learn more at WP:UPIMAGE.

If you want to watch nearly all changes to chess articles, the project has a public watchlist at Index of chess articles: Related changes. It is indifferently maintained. I have a more up to date list at Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Quale/publicwatchlist. (I recently replaced my workstation and haven't updated my public watchlist in a few days, but I expect to get back to it soon.) Quale (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Player countries

@Khiikiat With respect to this edit:

You're conflating representing a federation with playing under the FIDE flag due to the Russian flag being banned. For example, Ian Nepomniachtchi still represents Russia (you recently made an erroneous edit to his article claiming he represents FIDE since 2022), while Peter Svidler represents FIDE. You can see this clearly on the FIDE rating list, where the players representing Russia have the Russian flag. I noticed that you also made similar erroneous edits to other articles like Denis Lazavik.

Only the display of the flags of Russia and Belarus in tournaments is banned; that doesn't mean their national federations are suspended and their players represent FIDE. They still represent their national federation as per their FIDE profile, unless they transferred. 9ninety (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my edits are erroneous. I think |country= is for the flag under which the player plays. (See Template talk:Infobox chess biography/Archive 1#Does "country" refer to federation, citizenship or residence?) Esipenko's federation is the Chess Federation of Russia, but he does not represent Russia. He represents FIDE. This was clearly stated at the closing ceremony of the World Cup. See this video. Khiikiat (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is peculiar, however, that the FIDE website uses Russian flags next to Russian players. That was not the case a year ago, as 9ninty linked above. It seems that their website is acknowledging the Russians country, which means we are actually deviating from the primary source's usage for the "Country" entry in the infobox. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me, there is nothing peculiar. The Russian flag appears on Esipenko's profile because his federation is the Chess Federation of Russia, and the FIDE flag appears on Svidler's profile because his federation is FIDE. However, both players play under the FIDE flag, and both players represent FIDE. Khiikiat (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What appears in the infobox must represent what appears in the article. If the article states that the subject plays for Russia or is Russian, the infobox must say that too. Conversely if the infobox says that his country is FIDE, the article must agree with that (and explain it). Bruce leverett (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be assumed that readers know what it means that someone "plays for FIDE" or "represents FIDE". Readers of our articles should be assumed to know almost nothing about chess. FIDE is not a country. If we note that someone plays for FIDE or under the FIDE flag, we are obliged to explain that or to link to an explanation of it. This is true, not only for our player biographies, but also for other articles about tournaments or other current events in chess. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recall it always being the case; for example, in October 2022. The flag is only banned in events. 9ninety (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khiikiat, changing Andrey Esipenko's federation to FIDE is beyond stupid. His federation is clearly Russia as can be seen on his FIDE profile WikiProject Chess rating card at FIDE. There are players with registered federation FIDE, but Esipenko is not one of them. Quale (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An apology, Esipenko is a player who FIDE had listed with country 'FIDE' in rating lists from March 2022 through March 2025 and it might have been warranted to use FIDE as his country in his bio infobox for those 37 months. Since April 2025 FIDE records have said Russia and now there's no question that 'Russia' is appropriate in his infobox. Someone who knew that Esipenko had been listed as FIDE could have been unaware that FIDE had made a change earlier this year. Quale (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Quale: I don't think my edit is beyond stupid. Esipenko does not play under the Russian flag. Bruce leverett wrote here: I don't know if we have this written down anywhere, so I'm not being authoritative, but I think "country" refers to the flag the person is playing under. In the past, the flag and the federation have usually been the same. But, since 2022, it has been possible for them to be different. If |country= is for the federation (not the flag), then the label ought to be changed to Federation. Khiikiat (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Esipenko does not mention, outside the infobox, that he is playing under the FIDE flag. For a reader who is not familiar with FIDE’s wrestling with the problems caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the specification of FIDE as his country in the infobox is an unsolvable mystery. Are you going to add something to the article text to help with this? Bruce leverett (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett: I don't agree that it was an unsolvable mystery. As you can see from this edit, I added an explanatory footnote. However, the footnote has been removed by 9ninety and Quale. I agree that it would be helpful to add something to article text, but I think the key issue is whether |country= refers to the flag or the federation. I have started an RfC about this. The RfC can be found here: Template talk:Infobox chess biography#RfC: Country. Khiikiat (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncool. RFCs are intended to be used after conversations at places like talk pages have proven unfruitful. Volunteer time is limited, and calling in the larger community to invest their time in such things should be used sparingly. This conversation is only three days old and still seems constructive. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esipenko isn't really a good example for that argument since it is absolutely clear that today his infobox must say Russia. There are 35 GMs whose FIDE profiles indicate federation FIDE including

Alexander Khalifman rating card at FIDE
Peter Svidler rating card at FIDE

I'm not certain what should be in their infoboxes. Possibly "Russia (FIDE flag player)" or "FIDE flag player (Russia)". Quale (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Svidler's infobox should simply say [[FIDE flag player|FIDE]] because his federation is FIDE, he plays under the FIDE flag, and he officially represents FIDE. The question, for me, is what to do about people like Esipenko, whose federation is the CFR, but who play under the FIDE flag and officially represent FIDE. That is why I started the RfC. Khiikiat (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that the infobox often includes all the player federation affiliations with the effective years. So Svidler could have two lines similar to Russia (through 2022); FIDE (since 2022). The case of Esipenko is simple, his country is Russia. I've said this over and over and it hasn't changed. Esipenko doesn't officially represent FIDE. If he did, his federation would be FIDE like Svidler. Esipenko doesn't use the FIDE flag because he's representing FIDE, he uses the FIDE flag because FIDE doesn't allow use of the flags of Russia or Belarus. Quale (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at the RfC. Khiikiat (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox chess biography has an RfC

Template:Infobox chess biography has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Khiikiat (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harm Geert Muller

There is a new page Harm Geert Muller which calls him a physicist but 99.99% of the page is about his chess program. There is insufficient information on the page to verify notability as a physicist, and I don't know what the concensus is for chess notability. If someone has WP:NPP right please review it, otherwise please provide enough here for me to do it. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of any special criteria for judging notability of chess programmers (and programs). You can look at WP:NCHESS, but it is for chess players, not for chess programmers.

I agree with your assessment that there is not sufficient evidence of notability. The text of the page is largely copied from the chess programming wiki entry for Muller. The chess programming wiki is not a reliable source. Neither in the Wikipedia article, nor in the chess programming wiki entry, did I see any citations of reliable sources about his chess or shogi programming. I see that you have added a Notability tag to the Wikipedia article. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New category

A recent edit by someone else has inspired me to think about creating a new category, "Rules of chess", which would include Castling, En passant, Threefold repetition, Promotion (chess), Checkmate, and (not least) Rules of chess. Will work on this soon. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been anticipated. I don't know why I missed this. Category:Rules of chess exists, and the article Rules of chess is already in it. Sorry for the false alarm. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

"This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Budapest Gambit

Budapest Gambit has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The core of the article was created in 2009 by a couple of very motivated editors who we don't see around much anymore. To be honest I don't really care if it loses GA status and I'm not going to make a flurry of edits to preserve it. I've seen what happened to the chess article when we tried to do this, and it wasn't pretty. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New article about chess player

Hi, I created a draft and submitted that to Afc about Sarwagya Singh Kushwaha. I tried my best to expand this but my inner soul felt this could get rejected. Can someone help me expand this as this is about youngest FIDE rated chess player. Thanks––KEmel49(📝,📋) 19:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of ECO codes

Harlequin69 is making some valid points. There is a case for "list of chess openings" and "list of ECO codes" co-existing, but I hated how the the chess.com "every opening has to have a name" crowd took it over. How should we proceed? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Change the name to "List of Named Chess Openings". Then we can at least require reliable sources for opening names. Not chess.com or chess365 or whatever. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you — I think this is a constructive direction.

Requiring reliable, non–site-specific sources for opening names is entirely reasonable, and I fully support excluding meme-based or purely internet-origin labels.

One small concern with the proposed title “List of Named Chess Openings” is that it may unintentionally narrow the scope toward nomenclature rather than conceptual structure. Many historically established opening families (e.g. Open Games, Semi-Open Games, Indian Defences, Gambit families) are meaningful precisely because of their ideas and structures, not just because of a single canonical name.

Perhaps a way forward could be:

A curated, concept-oriented page (whether titled List of chess openings or similar) that:
- organizes openings by families and ideas,
- includes only historically established and reliably sourced names,
- explicitly excludes informal or meme-based labels;
alongside List of ECO codes as the technical classification index.

This would address the “everything needs a name” concern while preserving a human-oriented overview that helps readers understand how openings relate to one another.

I’d be happy to help outline sourcing criteria or a basic structure if that would be useful. Harlequin69 (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first issue is sourcing. Have you found sources from which to get your organization? We shouldn't just make stuff up.

I'm worried that you are going in the direction of Pawn structure, which classifies openings in a plausible way, but is entirely unsourced, and so is not sufficiently credible. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you — that’s a fair concern, and I agree entirely that we should avoid any original or unsourced classification.

To clarify, I’m not proposing a novel organizational scheme (such as pawn-structure–based taxonomies), nor anything derived from personal synthesis. The intent is to rely on long-established opening families as they are already presented in authoritative chess literature.

For example, classifications such as:

Open Games
Semi-Open Games
Closed Games
Indian Defences
Flank Openings
Gambit families

are not modern inventions, but appear consistently in classic and mainstream sources, including:

the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings itself (in its volume structure and introductory material),
standard opening manuals (e.g. Nunn, Fine, Pachman, modern repertoire books),
and long-standing chess encyclopedias and reference works.

In other words, the proposed structure would be derived directly from published sources, not synthesized independently. The page would essentially summarize how reputable sources already group openings, with citations at the family level.

If it would help, the next concrete step could be to:

list specific sources that define these families explicitly, and
draft a minimal outline where each family heading is backed by at least one reliable reference.

I’m very open to keeping the scope conservative and source-driven — the goal is accessibility, not reinterpretation. Harlequin69 (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ECO generally avoids using opening names, which often vary between countries. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree — and that’s precisely why List of ECO codes is so valuable as a technical reference.

My suggestion isn’t to replace or reinterpret the ECO system in any way, but to acknowledge that it deliberately optimizes for standardization rather than reader orientation. Avoiding opening names solves one problem (ambiguity across languages), but it also means ECO is not designed to serve as a conceptual overview.

That’s the gap I’m hoping to address: a separate, source-driven overview that reflects how authoritative literature discusses opening families and ideas, while leaving List of ECO codes to do what it already does very well.

In short: ECO for classification; a curated list for comprehension — coexisting, not competing. Harlequin69 (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the concern is that if we recreate the article it will end up like this, full of unsourced names for openings which hardly anyone plays and which you won't find in any standard reference. The article was truly a magnet for low quality edits. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ECO system functions essentially as an index. Much like a library classification system, its purpose is to tell you where something belongs — not why it is interesting, how it relates to other works, or where to begin as a reader.

Listing chess openings exclusively by ECO codes is therefore comparable to listing an author’s books by ISBN numbers rather than by title or theme. This is entirely correct from a technical and cataloguing standpoint, but it is not especially informative or approachable for non-specialist readers.

This is precisely why the ECO system works so well as a reference tool, and also why it is not designed to replace an explanatory, concept-oriented overview. The two serve different but complementary purposes.

My intention is not to weaken the technical rigor of the ECO classification, but to ensure that, alongside it, there remains an encyclopedic entry point that helps readers understand what the main opening families are and how they relate to one another — before they consult the index.

In short: ECO tells you where to find an opening; an encyclopedic overview helps you understand why it matters. Harlequin69 (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday Cbigorgne pointed below to the thing that wikipedia has that already does this. A list is not well suited to helping anyone understand why something matters. Once you start making a list you already know why the things matter—that's why you list them. Articles can explain why things matter, and wikipedia has Chess_opening#Classification_of_chess_openingsQuale (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we already have an excellent list in Opening (chess)#Classification of chess openings. Why not copy-paste this list?--Cbigorgne (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Oscar Hovind

Can someone please add some sources with WP:SIGCOV to this article? Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this article's chances of surviving an Afd. I couldn't find anything in the usual sources (google books, internet archive), or even the self-published chessmetrics. Representing Norway at a chess Olympiad is something, but probably not enough on its own to confer notability, especially given his poor results there. Another self-published historic rating site, edochess, indicates that he was not a very strong player. 12th in the 1925 Norwegian championship confirms this.

Some time ago a Latvian gentleman added Wikipedia bios for dozens of obscure players who played for their countries in chess olympiads. He relied heavily on Olimpbase.org for his sourcing, which is problematic in itself since it's arguably a self-published site. It doesn't help that the olimpbase site has been having all sorts of problems lately with its cloud security provider, although it's a goldmine of information when it's actually working. Some of the articles he created survived Afd challenges and became decent articles once we'd tidied up the English and general style, but many of them didn't. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US Chess Championship - Swiss format (1999–2013)

Are you sure that 1999 is the correct year?

1999, 2000, 2002 2002 -- Volcanus (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opening articles style

Hey, just was wondering if anyone had any input on whether they prefer:

Main line section to come first (after History, Basics, etc) followed by deeper and then gradually more shallow side lines; shallowest side lines first with deeper and deeper side lines following and then the main line's section last; or a hybrid approach (e.g. my preference is main line first and shallowest side lines last, but also to have a "Variations"/"Overview"/etc section that explains the main line and links to subsection anchors for the side lines, followed by the main line's section)
"Other fifth moves for White" (currently the most common), "White's fifth move alternatives" (keeps the most important words, "White" and "fifth", adjacent), or "Fifth move alternatives for White" (keeps the most important words both capitalized)
"4.a4 a5 (the Foo Variation)" or "4.a4 a5 (Foo Variation)"
"sideline" or "side line"

Dayshade (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will want opinions other than mine (if anyone cares enough to offer an opinion, and they might not), but 1. whatever you like best in a particular article (I don't think this must be exactly the same in every article), 2. whatever you like best in a particular article (I don't think this must be exactly the same in every article), 3. never "the Foo V." in a section title, just "Foo V.", 4. this is a question of English rather than chess, and I think "sideline" is correct. Quale (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's an editor who wants to change King's Gambit to have the deepest theory last and start off with Declined lines first, but I'm more into keeping it with Declined last, so we have two different whatevers being liked best, which is why I asked. Same for #2 as Erukx changed the "Other fifth..." type stuff to "White's fifth..." but I sort of want to undo it or change it to the third option, but I don't care that much either I guess. As for #3, I meant when in the middle of a sentence in the body text of a section, like if I said 1.e4 e5 (the Open Game) vs 1.e4 e5 (Open Game) in the middle of a paragraph while listing some variations that may or may not have anchor links in the parentheses, not in a header/title itself. Dayshade (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're watching that. I took a look at Talk:King's Gambit and was going to offer an opinion like yours that the accepted lines are vastly more important and should come first because there's a strong general principle that the most important material should appear nearer the beginning of an article than the end. I haven't said anything yet as currently the treatment of the declined lines is rather brief so I'm not sure the placement matters too much. It would matter a lot if putting the declined lines first pushed the important accepted lines to the end of a long article. Quale (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting lines by frequency is valid to some extent, but it shouldn't be the only criterion. Lines that are thematically similar or can transpose into each other such as the Fischer Defence and the Becker Defence compared to 3...g5 should be grouped together in my opinion (another reason I don't like spinning 3...g5 out into a separate article). I don't like to see 3...d5 sorted ahead of 3...d6 and 3...h6 just because it's the more common move. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm good with 3...d6 and 3...h6 above 3...d5. 3...d6 is common itself anyway. I also have been drifting towards no split for 3...g5 too, I'm just not sure how to avoid making the Classical Variation being super long/having way too many subsections when merging in the details about certain lines that don't need their own articles (like Allgaier, Salvio, etc). Maybe it's just fine for it to be long. Could always add the overview thing now present at Ruy Lopez with anchor links. Dayshade (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An unrelated style thing that could be improved is the overuse of moves listed directly in section titles. These section titles are hard to read and hard to link. Sometimes this is unavoidable because some lines are important enough to deserve a section but don't have a well known name, but some of what we have is simply needlessly suboptimal.

There are many examples in Indian Defence, one is Indian Defence#Nimzo-Indian Defence: 3.Nc3 Bb4. The section title has the moves of the Nimzo but the moves appear nowhere in the article body text. The article has been that way for years, but I don't think this is good presentation. All the moves must be in the article text, not just in section titles. Quale (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to do what Budapest Gambit is doing (I guess this is asking - should they include all moves from move 1, or just the unique moves, 3.Nc3 Bb4 in this case?)? It would at worst do no harm to add such complete PGN to articles, yeah, although most casual readers always complain about finding it hard to parse PGN and prefer as many diagrams as possible. Dayshade (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]