Jump to content

Talk:Judit Polgár

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChessPlayerLev (talk | contribs) at 01:28, 22 January 2012 (→Polgar-Kasparov Lifetime Record?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 18, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved

Esperanto

I remember being told that she and her sisters speak Esperanto -- Error 03:00 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Strongest female player?

I don't know enough about women's chess to say for sure, but shouldn't the statement "considered by far the best female chess player in history" be removed as POV? I don't think Judit Polgar even had the same dominance in women's chess that Garry Kasparov had in men's chess in the 1980s and 1990s. --Lowellian 01:53, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm certain the statement is accurate. No other woman player has competed with the world's top men on an equal footing. A few may have got the odd win every now and then (Vera Menchik did, for instance), but they never competed alongside the men tournament after tournament, getting respectable or good results. In a sense, it's true that Polgar has never been dominant in women's chess, but that's only because she's never played in women-only events. If she did, I don't think there's any doubt that her dominance would be far greater than Kasparov's dominance in the men's game has ever been. Look at her Elo rating and compare it to her nearest female rival: on the latest list, Judit is 2728 (number nine in the world); Xie Jun is 2564 (outside the top 200). That's a big difference. --Camembert
I think a person would have to be totally ignorant of the facts or just brain dead to dispute the claim that she is the strongest female chessplayer in history. One could not even begin to build a case that any other woman was ever better. Normally I am suspicious of such claims as well but this one is cut and dried. --Malathion 29 June 2005 08:44 (UTC)

Would it be correct to say that no other woman has ever been in the top 100 on FIDE's rating list? --Fritzlein 17:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find out, but I don't have the means to check myself. The FIDE website only has lists going back a few years (and I can't even find those now); I guess that, unless one has access to the FIDE publications themselves, one would have to look for lists in old magazines. The most likely candidate for another woman in the top 100, I would think, would be Chiburdanidze in the late 1980s: she was 2560 in January 1988, which wouldn't be enough for the top 100 now, of course, but might have been back then. --Camembert
In the January 1988 FIDE list, Chiburdanidze was ranked (tied) 47th-49th with a rating of 2560, so Judit is not the only woman ever to have been ranked in the top 100 players in the world. I guess the next question would be what the highest ranking any other woman has achieved. Perhaps 47th is it? It isn't trivially verifiable from http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/ratings/ where I found the above tidbit of information, but perhaps I will do the legwork myself at some point. If Judit has a peak ranking of 9th and no other woman has a peak ranking higher than 47th, perhaps that will statisfy the NPOV concerns several people have raised. That seems "easily the strongest" to me... --Fritzlein 21:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the source of the claim that no other woman has ever been in the top 100 on FIDE. I was under the impression that Zsuzsa didn't quite make the top 100 (I have followed her career as well as Judit's), but she claims herself otherwise, so I am sure she is correct. --63.195.90.12

Judit is 150 Elo above the next woman. There has never been such a difference between men. Judit doesn't even appear on FIDE's women top chart. --Velho 02:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, she does normally, it's just that she's considered inactive because she took some time off, and inactive players don't appear in the "best" lists. She'll be listed again in the April list. (This doesn't affect your point - I'm just being pedantic.) --Camembert

Susan Polgar told the Wall Street Journal: ""When I was more active, I was ranked among the top 100 overall in the world" ... "There are only two women that have ever done this, and that is my sister Judit and I."

"I don't think Judit Polgar even had the same dominance in women's chess that Garry Kasparov had in men's chess in the 1980s and 1990s."
Judit has never played women's chess—she plays men's events exclusively. On the July 2005 FIDE ratings list she's ranked number 8 in the world. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that she is by far the strongest female chess player in history. Quale 04:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Ratt: I think it is an exagerration to consider Zsuzsa Polgar to be unequivocally the second strongest woman in chess. Xie Jun is very close to her in rating. It would be fair to say that Zsuzsa's was clearly the second strongest player, but she has not seriously played very actively in many years, and neither has Xie Jun. Perhaps most curiously is that their respective ratings suggest that they have gotten stronger in their virtual retirement. In a rematch between the two, I would call it as a toss up. Furthermore, the entry will almost certainly have to be revised in the next 5 years or so. Up and coming players like Humpy Koneru (who is performing well above her rating in the current Wijk an Zee tournament; which is against stronger male competition) and Kateryna Lahno (who is not doing as well, but is an extremely young 16 years old) seem quite likely to topple her rating as they get stronger. That is why I would prefer some kind of preemptive weasle words in there.

This is very different from Judit's status as the strongest female player. There is simply no doubt about that -- she is a pure genius of unmatched level amongst women, and even very few men have surpassed her. Qed 05:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd recommend that you edit the article to note the nature of Susan/Zsuzsa's rating. Something along the lines of "Zsuzsa is still ranked second-highest among women in the world, according to FIDE rating lists, as of January 2006." I don't have a dog in the fight; all I did was remove the word, "arguably"—which imparts no information to the site—and add a couple of references to back up the statement. Weasel words like "arguably," "reportedly," and "possibly" are, at best, sloppy editing.--RattBoy 22:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made it say "Easily one of the strongest female chess players in history", as that is by far much more neutral that declaring her to be the best female chess player ever to play.Daniel_123 | Talk 19:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back to "Easily the strongest female chess player in history". There is ample evidence to support the claim, and I have never heard it disputed. Watering down a claim (e.g. "Some people say that she might possibly be one of the stronger...") doesn't make it more neutral, if everyone agrees to the stronger claim. --Fritzlein 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide such evidence, until then your comment will be tagged. Themindset 23:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the course of improving the article I've provided numerous references to her as "strongest ever".BashBrannigan (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current twelve references is quite sufficient to support the claim. Her peak rating beats that of Koneru Humpy by 112 points and her current rating is better by 60 points. But Humpy (or someone else) may close the gap, in which case the article would need to say "up to xxxx". I'd say that if the gap gets to 25-30 points, it would no longer be that she is clearly the best. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Humpy closes the gap, that is likely not sufficient. Any "best ever" argument needs to take into account an entire career. Humpy hasn't played the number and strength of opponent, which Polgar has. Polgar's rating has dropped due to her family, but at her peak she had broken the top 10. Will Humpy at her best, break the top 10? Unlikely. Compare the two careers, the difference is huge. BashBrannigan (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Quale (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copy edited the lead. Saying she is considered the greatest women chess player in history covers it. The "by far" is non encyclopediatic and adds little and is more suited for her fan site annd cheerleaders, anyways.--Threeafterthree (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC) ps the long list of citations in the body of the article looks stupid. Could a "regular" editor here with more firmilarity just include the "best" 3 or 4, that would be more than enough. TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am aware that "by far" does not sound encyclopedic and mitigating with the addition of "considered" is normal practice in Wikipedia. However, Polgar is a unique case and "by far" is factually correct. The gap between Polgar and every other female player, in rating, ranking and historical performance is unprecedented. Polgar has competed, almost exclusively, against the best male players in the world for over 20 years. She has beaten 9 male world champions in games. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm unaware of any other women even beating a male World Champion ONCE in the history of chess! Polgar's gap between other women is greater than the gap between Kasparov and his contemporaries, or Fischer and his contemporaries or Capablanca and his contemporaries and if there is any gap comparable to Polgars, it must be in another sport. Polgar is the exception to normal Wikipedia practice and "by far" is factually correct and supported by sources. Second, the "stupid" number of citations is there because of debates just like this. Please do not remove it without discussion. BashBrannigan (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is one other case of a woman beating the world champion, that I am aware of: Zhu Chen defeated Ruslan Ponomariov: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1250299. But Ponomariov was very young, not exactly the strongest or most "legitimate" world champion (this was back when FIDE was doing abbreviated knock-out tournament style world championships) and one suspects he may have been "distracted" (since he was still the 300+ elo rating point favorite.) Qed (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you measure "by far"? Also, Quale, can you please at least not just mindlessly revert my edits. I did some other copy editing as well. Would you be willing to have other non involved editors chime in on this, maybe from the BLP board? Also, the number of citations is not that impressive or really that persvasive. --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)ps, a number of the 12 citations do not use the "by far" verbage so I don't know why you need to include them to support your version?--Threeafterthree (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is you who is "mindlessly" reverting against a prior consensus; a consensus which had already dealt with the same arguments you are now making. The citations are there to support not just "by far" but fact the she is the strongest, which was also disputed at one point. I am welcome to argue these points with anyone, Being an "involved" editor does not mean we cannot be objective. It does mean we've put a lot of work into this article. You have not said anything to change my mind that 'by far' is correct. BashBrannigan (talk)
You had it right the first time before you added the "not", just kidding. Seriously, its great that you have put alot of work into the article, but maybe you are to involved to see that just saying she is the greatest of all time, not even "one" of the greatest of all time sufices. Again, how do you measure "by far"? At what point would that description start to lose weight? The prior consensus doesn't look that strong and it can change, especially when more dis interested parties are involved. Again, would you be willing to defer to the BLP board? I would abide by what they thought. Also, the mindless refered to reverting all my edits, not just the one we currently disagree on. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)ps, strongest? does she have large muscles? Why not go with best or highly ranked/decorated or some better term, thoughts? --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not too close to it. Respectfully, I think part of the problem here is that you don't seem to know chess. You are not aware that "strong" is a common usage to speak of chess players and that chess players are not "decorated". To call Polgar "one of the best" would be a preposterous, laughable statement. I have already made my argument why Polgar is the greatest woman player ever "by far" and don't see the need to repeat what I wrote a few paragraphs above. If you know of a woman who has comparable achievements, please name her. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@BashBrannigan, I know how to play chess, rules, ect, but have zippo editing experience which I do admitt. I didn't know that using "strong" is common place. I have actually found that a great strength of this project is to actually have editors that are not experts in the field do general copy editing since that actually makles for a more "readable/understandable" article to laymen/plain folk. Have you ever read some of the math articles on this project? I am a math teacher and my head explodes trying to make heads or tails of some of those articles because the so called experts in that field have taken them over/ownership issues and only they can understand them. The best thing to do is to present readable facts and then let the reader decide if the subject is "by far" x,y, or z. Anyways, is there any compromise language that we could use or suggest? I know its hard to please all the folks all the time but.....cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, consensus can change. Please demonstrate that consenus has in fact changed, before making your edits. (See how import it is to get that in the correct sequence?) Also, the only other edit of yours that I reverted was your removal of the description of Kasparov's retracted move as "losing". Did you check the cited sources to make sure that this is not an accurate reflection of what they say? Quale (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take this to the blp board since non involved and non owners are needed at this point. --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented at BLPN, and I'll comment here as well. Let's put aside the dispute about the use of the phrase "by far" for the moment and discuss what is an unencyclopedic spilling of editor disputes into the article itself. First, we don't need 13 cites to back up the use of the phrase in the body. Second, we shouldn't be commenting in the cites themselves with things like "explicitly used". Finally, the section header shouuld be changed. "Strongest female player ever" sounds like something a 10-year-old would say, not an encylcopedia. Just eliminating the word "ever" would be a major improvement.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, what you refer to "spilling of editor disputes in the article". I don't disagree with your point per se, but I think its important to appreciate that they were added months ago and not due to this current dispute as were the 13 citations. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although, as a newcomer here, I appreciate the historical background, I don't think it's necessarily relevant going forward. I have concrete suggestions: (1) remove the word "ever" from the section header as unnecessary and at least somewhat unencyclopedic (we'd leave the "by far" in in the lead and in the section); (2) remove the "explicitly" explanations in the cites and replace them with the quote parameter so the phrase "by far" is included; and (3) reduce the number of cites from 13 to some more manageable number, hopefully no more than 4 or 5. As for the third point, I'm happy to lot others decide which cites to eliminate. How does that sound?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me and would be a good start. --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point, I disagree. I don't think "strongest ever" is unencyclopedic nor do I think it sounds childish. Simply "strongest female" is incomplete because she is not just the strongest female chess player today, she is in fact the strongest female chess player of all time. This is a rather unusual situation that many people have difficulty grasping, but although the strongest male chess player in history (or simply strongest player of any sex) is impossible to objectively determine, there is no doubt who the strongest female is. As far as the citations go, I think there's always room for improvement in selection and presentation. I would caution that the changes you suggest are unlikely to prevent this sort of issue from coming up again. A question for Threeafterthree: Did you actually read the two citations given on the sentence that characterized Kasparov's move as "losing"? I have not personally checked them, so you may be right. What does the Jack Peters (LA Times) source say? Quale (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "strongest" sounds like she is a weight lifter or something, but BashBrannigan said that this terminology is standard for chess?, something I didn't know and still don't really get. Again, I would go with most accomplished or greatest, which even seems weaselly. Yes, I did read the citation and it says something along the lines that he realized it was a "bad" move, so I wouldn't go with "losing". Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "strongest female player to date" since we don't know about "of all time" (i.e. in the future). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Threeafterthree: You read the citation and it "says something along the lines"? That doesn't sound to me like you actually read it. Can you quote the relevant bit exactly, and what else did Jack Peters write? Quale (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Quale, I am sorry, I actually was referring to the other citation and wasn't able to read/find the Peter's article. Also, I might need to step out(real life stuff) so feel free to do as you like, I just wanted to "get on the record" my concerns. Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand she is the strongest, not just currently competing, but historically. However, the section header "Strongest female player" doesn't contradict that fact. At worst, it is ambiguous. But the first sentence right after it with the "of all time" makes it clear she is the strongest female player ever to compete. As Bubba points outs, we don't know about the future. Obviously, sentences like "of all time" will have to be changed if a future female player is later considered stronger. I just don't see why the section header has to get across all of the information that is articulated in the body. It's just a header, not a sentence. Anyway, what about my other two points? Does the lack of push back on those mean that there's a consensus for doing them?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents ... 1) I agree w/ Bbb23, "Strongest woman player" is a perfect section title, when "... is the strongest female player of all-time" is maintained as first sentence in the section. (Then "Strongest woman player" is defacto short-hand for "... of all-time".) 2) I agree "Strongest woman player ever" is a bit adolescent-speak, but disagree the word "ever" means future! (It would mean to anybody I think, "today and previous to today".) 3) I think Bbb23's idea to build quotations into cites to preempt future debates and need for explanations is excellent! 4) On issue of word "strongest", I agree every chessplayer knows this. But 3after3 may have a point, a layperson could be momentarily puzzled. (Is a possible simple fix, to add 'Strength' to Chess glossary for wikifying word 'strongest', including chess term examples with special nuance, different from common dictionary defs, for 'strong player', 'strong position', 'strong tournament'!?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BashBrannigan. Yes, Judit Polgar is the strongest female player ever. Yes, "strength" is standard terminology when referring to a chessplayer's skill. I also agree that right now, Judit Polgar is "by far" the strongest female player ever, although I can take that statement or leave it. I'm no "cheerleader" and am not even a particular fan of her play, but these are just really basic facts more than they are opinions. Honestly, it would be nice if more people chimed in who actually understood chess. If you don't understand chess terminology or how strength in the game is usually defined (by rating lists, memorable games, and tournament successes), please don't be so aggressive in changing things and proclaiming yourself correct.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I would like to make a few points of my own... First off, how can you comprehend the concept that it is not POV to say somone is easily the best ever at somthing? That is not somthing you can prove. Therefore, if there is one person on a little island somwhere who disagrees, then you have made a POV statemnet. Is it true? Propably. Is it a fact? No. Is Roger Federer the best tennis player in the world right now? If you know anything about tennis, you propably say yes. But, if you are looking for actual proof this is true, you should give up now, because there is someone in the world who disagrees. Was George Bush a better presidential cantidate than John Kerry at the time of the 2004 elections? Why don't we all go over there and say he was. After all, the majority of people thought so. But wait; we can't. That's not neutral, as there are people in the world who disagree. You can't prove Hitler was a bad person. That's why the article doesn't say he was. That's my point, forgive the length of it. Daniel_123 | Talk 18:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove from Wikipedia every statement with which at least one person potentially disagrees, little will be left. The NPOV policy itself states something else: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." I take "serious dispute" in that sentence to mean more than that there might be someone somewhere who disagrees. There is no serious dispute about whether Judit Polgar is the strongest female chess player ever. You tagged the statement as POV without referencing any dispute. Indeed, I think it would be hard to reference a dispute, because I don't think there is any. I apologize that I reverted to the original fact without providing a reference. My mistake. Nevertheless, it is (IMHO) an equal and opposite mistake to slap the POV label on a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute, i.e. a fact. --Fritzlein 20:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel's opinion of what is POV and what is not is ... I won't be unkind, so let's call it ... impractical? Unworkable? Fritzlein is wrong, not "little" will be left, but nothing will be left. NOTHING can be proven in absolutes, not even the law of gravity. There's always a chance that somewhere, in a parallel universe, gravity won't work. Also, if you want to be taken a tat (just a tat) more seriously, try to spell better. ;) --Brian Tjoe-Nij (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

name

her name in wikipedia should be written as Judit Polgar this is the much more common spelling, in articles, literature, websites, etc. please see WP:Naming. Themindset 01:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not expressing an opinion on any of this (I wasted too much time over Savielly Tartakower), but you may also want to look at the location of the articles on Peter Leko (or is that Péter Lékó) and Vassily Ivanchuk (Vasyl Ivanchuk). --Camembert 15:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not like we have our Wikipedia articles for Garry Kasparov in cyrillic. Who wants to type "Га́рри Ки́мович Каспа́ров" when they're looking for him? ⟳ausa کui × 23:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photo?

Ignoring the foregoing comment, isn't there a public-domain photo available? We have photos of Capa, Tal, and even Bent Larsen—why not Judit?--RattBoy 01:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woman Grandmaster

Oddly perhaps I doubt if she's ever won this title as it can only be won in women-only tournaments. PatGallacher 18:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. The WGM title can be earned by achieving norms that are actually easier to get in unrestricted tournaments. From what I can tell, FIDE says that both Judit and Zsuzsa have earned both the WGM and GM titles. Someone who knows for sure will probably chime in. 24.196.91.209 04:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's right: this is probably the clearest place to look. The "T" column shows the "male" (unisex?) titles the player has; the "WT" shows the women titles. Susan and Judit are both GMs and WGMs. It's clear from the FIDE handbook that a woman doesn't need to ever play another woman to become a WGM herself. --Camembert 17:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship with Bobby Fischer

The article on Bobby Fischer claims that for some time the former world champion was living in Hungary and was in contact with the Polgar family. This makes me curious. Fischer hates Jews, and the Polgars are a Jewish family -- their grandmother even died in Auchwitz! I wonder if Judit or any other Polgars have made any comments about Fischer's anti-semitism and how it affects their relationship with them. 24.61.12.141 04:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this link http://www.dmv.demon.nl/newpage0.html It contains this quote from Susan Polgar, "He would get around that by saying, 'He is a nice person despite the fact that he is Jewish" Rocksong 05:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Sherzer lived with the Polgars and communicated with Fischer several times. Fischer kept on spouting nonsense and hatre of Jews that the Polgars or Sherzer would wanted to have anything to do with him. Judith is either a really loyal friend or stupid to stick up for Alex Sherzer when he was charged with trying to have sex with a 15 year old. Eventually, Alex Sherzer was founded not guilty by the jury because, the government entrapped him. Judith did risked her reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertyt1 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record against Kasparov

I have reverted Michaelbluejay's edit, in which he removed the qualification that Polgar's only win against Kasparov is in Rapid. This is an important qualification that needs to stay in; because (a) Polgar's record against Kasparov is quite poor (though she's not alone in that regard), and without the "rapid" qualifier the article gives the opposite impression; (b) rapid chess is quite different to classical time control chess, as evidenced by the fact that rapid games do not count towards a player's rating. I'm happy to remove the Kasparov reference altogther, but if the article is to say she's beaten Kasparov, it must also state it was only at rapid chess, IMHO. Rocksong 05:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the article saying that the win against Kasparov was at a faster time control, but I object strongly to the dismissive way in which it's presented -- "ALTHOUGH her ONLY win against...Kasparov was in rapid chess". That seems to be written to forcefully downplay her accomplishment. Also, there is some dispute as to whether this was really her only win, as it is well known that Kasparov broke the no-touch rule in an earlier game with Polgar. Finally, I agree that rapid is different from standard, but that argument cuts both ways. For example, we could say, "Kasparov's record against Polgar is good only with the standard time control." Either way, one style of chess is disparaged in favor of the other. I'll think about how to preserve the rapid chess designation without making the comment dismissive. -MichaelBluejay 08:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, disparaged?? Classical chess is "real" chess. There is no both ways here. For that matter, there isn't even any argument here. When you list a player's records, you don't specially indicate classical results. If they win some speed tournament, IF it's even mentioned on a list of their accomplishments, it will be tagged specially to indicate it was speed. But winning a speedgame means so much less. I beat a USCF Master in a 30 minute game (over a real board with real clock, not on the Internet). However, I could never do that at REAL CHESS. That's the difference. The faster the time control, the more random the result. That is why it is "disparaged", as you call it. The faster it goes, the less accurate, and the more likely skewed results will come about. Non-masters beat even world-class Grandmasters at high-speed chess for that very reason, but these are hardly worthy of note. Most serious chess players find the idea of mentioning a speed-game win over anybody, Kasparov or not, in an biographical article to be ludicrous in the extreme. The only downplay here is to include a speedgame in a biographical article about a great player, Judit Polgar. THAT is the insult, including something so unworthy of attention. Summary: I contend that the mention of a SPEED GAME should be excluded entirely. It's the equivalent of mentioning that she paid a bill at a restaurant or something, it's not a major accomplishment. IMs can beat Kasparov at speedgames!!! So what? Why isn't that mentioned? Because it's pointless. Nobody cares. Speed it up and almost anybody can beat almost anybody, it randomizes things from a human standpoint. GM Polgar's accomplishments are great without dirtying it up by mentioning something so condescending, as if you have to stretch for silliness like that to try to make her sound worthwhile. Smyslov 03:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the sentiment, even if not all the details (has any IM really ever beaten Kasparov at speed chess?) In any case Polgar's record is awesome, and she has beaten almost all leading GMs. Why not just leave it at that? Rocksong 04:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make this very simple. During the late 90s and early 00s, active chess has recieved more attention in chess. So much so that most of the top players have played in many active chess tournaments. When the ELO rating formulas were applied to these tournaments it was very clear that Vishy Anand and Alexei Shirov were the best active chess players in the world. Kasparov was, like, 5th or something. Not surprisingly, Kasparov didn't keep playing a lot of active chess tournaments, even though such tournaments were still being organized. Also Kasparov railed against FIDE for trying to shorten the official standard chess time controls, for WC tournaments. The upshot being that Kasparov is clearly not "Kasparov" when it comes to Active Chess. He's just another strong player, at active chess. I also have a strong impression that both Judit and Susan Polgar are unusually stronger at faster time controls (Susan has won the US Blitz championship a number of times, which is far in excess of what you would expect from her standard rating) which is likely due to the way the "grew up" with chess -- they probably have amongst the best natural feel for the game of any players in their generation (Judit tends to have weaker opening and endgame technique than top players, which requires more hard work and technical effort, and more time on the board which Active Chess doesn't allow for). Taking all these factors into account, leaving off the "active chess" disclaimer on her win against Kasparov is really missing a lot of context. A lot of the things I have written here are true, but hard to state in an unequivocal encyclopedic way. The fact that her win came from an Active Chess game is a non-disputed fact, and implicitely encodes (correctly) some of what I have said here.
You can see this as disparaging if you like (a win against a top player in a chess game seen as disparaging?), but that ignores the fact that "Active Chess" has become more popular and such a thing may be seen as also a positive statement. Perhaps it should be augmented with a more impressive fact: Polgar has defeated Anand *MANY TIMES* at Active Chess.  :) Qed 21:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Active Chess has received more attention than Classical Time control chess, then remind me who is Active Chess world champion, who has qualified for Active Chess GM/IM/FM titles, and where the Active Chess rating list is. Rocksong 02:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim that Active Chess has become more popular than Classical Time controls. Only that it has become more popular in its own right (it was basically not played in any organized tournaments by top players at all before the mid to late 90s.) This is also irrelevant to the point I am making. If there were a real active chess rating list, it is very likely that Polgar would be in the top 3 or 4 in the world (which is even more impressive than her best ever standard rating ranking) and if Kasparov were still playing he'd probably rate lower than her. So the fact that she could beat him in an individual game at active time controls actually is not that surprising, and I will repeat that a far more impressive result is the fact that she can hold her own against Anand (who would clearly be #1, and by a reasonable margin) at active time controls.
Being ignorant of all this context is comparable to being ignorant that Polgar is the best female chess player in the world. Trying to pretend that this win is in some way comparable to a win against Kasparov at standard time controls is just ignorance. I have played over several of the games between Polgar and Kasparov at normal time controls -- unforunately, she just was not able to rise to his level.
Polgar's most recent rise into the true elite of chess has happened *after* Kasparov's virtual, and then real retirement. So one way to understand this is to realize that Polgar has never faced Kasparov at std. time controls at her peak level (certainly never as a 2700+ player; keeping in mind that Kasparov has been 2800+ for a large part of his career). Another way to understand it is that Kasparov has a super-set of Polgar's style (active, complicating, tactical), so Polgar is not able to bring to the board any capability that Kasparov didn't also have himself and to a greater degree.
Finally, one should realize that Polgar can continue to get better because she is still an active chess player, while Kasparov cannot. The era where she could have tried to prove herself with a solid win or two against Kasparov is over. Now she has other fish to fry. (Actually, I am not aware if Polgar has ever defeated Kramnik.) Qed 09:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't agree with all that, but still it seems that you agree with my basic point: that her rapid win against Kasparov is largely irrelevant, and to highlight it (a single rapid game in more than a decade as a super-GM) actually detracts from her other, more important, achievements. Perhaps a way around it is to pin it as an postscript to the paragraph about the "let-go-of-piece" controversy against Kasparov. Rocksong 00:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well just in case my point above was not understood, here is what Polgar herself has to say about her win against Kasparov (from http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7849):
Interviewer: How about Kasparov and Anand? You've defeated them both. Which win gave you the most pleasure?
Polgar: From chess point of view I am happier with my game against Anand in Dos Hermanas, 1999. I beat Kasparov "only" in a rapid game. But really, from professional point of view I am happier with my games against Kasparov: the two draws I played against him in Linares, 2001."
You would almost think she were quoting me talking about her when talking about herself. Upshot: she, like any true chess player, does not consider her rapid win against Kasparov all that significant (at least not compared to her best performances against him in standard time control, and her best performances against Anand).
Qed (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would interject here to keep some context. Qed, what you are saying is not incorrect, however, from what I recall, the origin of this thread was that an editor (not part of this specific thread, I think) was deliberately trying to downgrade Polgar's win against Kasparov, among other things. The win has been commented as significant in many various media and therefore has legitimate distinction and is the justification for the emphasis regardless even of Polgar's personal opinion of the game. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the exact context that the edit back in 2006 was made, but the disclaimer about rapid chess is an extremely important one. As of right now, there is no rating list for rapid chess, nor is it used at any major international tournaments or Candidates Tournaments (which determine the challenger to the current world champion) except as tie-breakers. (And many people have raised major objections to this) Someone here asked what IMs have beaten Kasparov in speed chess? Well, I know that Cyrus Lakdawala, back when he was only an FM (FIDE Master), not even yet an IM, beat him in blitz very convincingly. Look, Smyslov above was absolutely correct. Rapid chess was hardly even played before 1990, and has only been played more often since then because of the idea that it will make chess more "TV-friendly". Yet, it's still not used in any serious tournaments or matches, nor does it even appear on the FIDE rating list. At the very least, it's an extremely important disclaimer.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

Why was this article given an NPOV tag? Michaelbluejay and I were in a quite minor disagreement, and I really don't think the situation has degenerated to the point that the NPOV tag is required. Also, protocol is that, if the NPOV tag is put in, the person putting it in should explain why on the talk page. Therefore, I propose removing it. Rocksong 06:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a long time there was a large argument as to the fact that you can call her the best female chess player ever. I changed it to one of the best ever, somone changed it back. I changed it back and asked them to please do not revert it, and they left it that way for a long time. I don't feel it is neutral at all to call her the best ever, even if she propably is. On the list of notable male tennis players, we don'y have a note: Please note, these guys are better than like any of the top 100 female players, so you really can't compare between genders, unless one like gets in a car accident, because women are like not nearly as good as good . We still haven't done that.  Daniel_123  ► ► 12:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That would look like this if it were wikified. Please note, these guys are better than like any of the top 100 female players, so you really can't compare between genders, unless one like gets in a car accident, because women are like not nearly as good[1][2][3]  Daniel_123  ► ► 13:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says she is considered the best female player in history. There is little dispute about that. Someone provided 3 cites. I think you'd have trouble finding a cite that considers anyone else stronger. Rocksong 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rocksong. I was unaware that anyone could possibly consider that there has ever been a female player stronger than J. Polgar (except perhaps for her sister Susan, who also has a laundry list of impressive accomplishments but is still rated some 133 points below Judit). Also, as Rocksong points out, the article says she is considered to be the strongest female chessplayer, and of that there can be absolutely no doubt. -MichaelBluejay 16:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided three cites that male tennis players are better than female ones. So what about that not at the bottom of the list of notable tennis players?  Daniel_123  ► ► 01:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the tennis community's opinion about male vs. female tennis players, and that's not the article we're editing. I do believe that the chess community's opinion of J. Polgar is that she is the strongest female player ever, and you've certainly provided no cites that suggest otherwise. If you feel strongly that your references about tennis belong on the tennis page then you can certainly argue your case for that over there. -MichaelBluejay 01:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, you say "For a long time there was a large argument". Please enlighten me: Who claimed that some female chess player is better than Judit Polgar? Who is the player claimed by someone to be better? I am unaware of this argument you make reference to. --Fritzlein 22:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, for a while there were revertions, some users saying that she was the best chess player ever, and some saying she was one of the best. Then somone made it Easily the strongest female chess player in history. That was soon reverted and then replaced, and I said easily one of the best chess players in history. And, from there there were several arguments posed on some user talk pages, and there I finally made it "one of the strongest female chess players in history". That lasted for a long time until a change was made, finally with some cites. So there is my life story in a paragraph.  Daniel_123  ► ► 23:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you meant an argument internal to Wikipedia, not an argument elsewhere that could be referenced. I see. But apparently even in the internal argument, no one has ever touted any female as a stronger chess player than Judit Polgar. In other words, there was never an argument about whether or not she is in fact the strongest female chess player of all time. The only argument was about what the article should say. Is this correct? I am still looking for the person who disputes that Judit Polger is the strongest female chess player of all time, so I can ask who they think is/was better and why. --Fritzlein 20:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate having opinions forced on me, but in this case, is this really a matter of opinion at all? I can't imagine there is any other woman in history who played chess strong enough to even cast this issue into the vaguest cloud of possibility for debate or even contemplation. It would be like taking a superstar NBA basketball player into a basketball game consistinly only of 7th graders and then saying the NBA superstar is merely "one of the best players in that game, but room for debate exists". Sorry, sometimes - not often - but sometimes, it's just not true that there is any possibility of debate. Smyslov 16:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you have a an objection to the way the article currently reads or not? If so, what is your preferred wording, and what are your sources that substantiate that preferred wording? -MichaelBluejay 11:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new issue has arisen, the description of Vesselin Topalov as a "former World Chess Champion". This is laughably absurd. He has never won a World Championship match in his life, and has only played in one (October 2006, vs. World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, which he lost). Here's a complete list of all the world champions, show me where Topalov fits in: 1.Wilhelm Steinitz, 2.Emanuel Lasker, 3.Capablanca, 4.Alekhine, 5.Euwe, 6.Botvinnik, 7.Smyslov, 8.Mikhail Tal, 9.Tigran Petrosian, 10.Boris Spassky, 11.Bobby Fischer, 12.Anatoly Karpov, 13.Garry Kasparov, 14.Vladimir Kramnik. 14 World Champions to date, and unless I'm going blind I listed all 14 of them.

Of course Topalov is a former FIDE world champion. But I think there's no need to specially mention Topalov and Kasparov in the introduction anyway. She's beaten nearly all top players, and is always in or around the top 10. Highlighting that she's won a game here or there against Topalov or Kasparov actually diminishes her achievements. Rocksong 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding POV, I have a problem with the way the Kasparov "cheating" controversy is covered in this article. IIRC the video showed he lost contact with the piece for 1/25th of a second and didn't believe that he had. Seems this only source for this section is a web page created by a Polgar fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.172.46 (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the video showed that Kasparov had released the piece for 1/16 of a second or so. It is certainly possible that he did not think he had released it, or at a minimum wasn't sure if he had. The way the article is presently written is POV, implying that Kasparov cheated (i.e., intentionally violated the touch-move rule a la Milan Matulovic). Krakatoa (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is calling it "controversial" which is appropriate. I see nothing which says or implies he was intentionally trying to cheat. What specific line do you object to? Additionally, both you and the editor you agree with say you saw him touch the piece and violate the rule. Whether it's 1/25 or 1/16 or 1/1000 of a second is irrelevant. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "Kasparov changed his mind after making a losing move" and "Polgár did not challenge this because she says there were no witnesses" - these statements, to my mind, imply that both players were certain that Kasparov had taken his hand off the piece. The passage also omits mention of the fact that his hand left the piece for a small fraction of the second - this omission also implies that there was a knowing, blatant violation of the rule. Mind you, I agree that Kasparov violated the rule - but I think the passage should make clear that the violation may not have been intentional. Krakatoa (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both statements are sourced. Do you have sources that are contrary? However, even from your description I think both statements are reasonable. BashBrannigan (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for additional sources and added them. All sources I've seen describe the incident as Kasparov "changing his mind". Jonathan Berry, a Canadian Fide Master and International Arbiter, in his newspaper column was unequivocal on this and was even more critical of Kasparov that what is in this article. The wording in the article seems reasonable. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have done an excellent job making the discussion of this dispute NPOV. More importantly, you have done a great job on the article as a whole. Thanks principally to you, we finally have an article worthy of the strongest woman chessplayer ever. Krakatoa (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the nice words. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polgar fan club site

I've deleted the link to the "Judit Polgar fan club" site because it adds nothing:

  • it is not official
  • it has had 5 new members in the last year (so it's small)
  • It only has one substantial contributor (so it's really just a blog)
  • there's no Judit Polgar news which can't easily be found elsewhere
  • the message boards are almost unused, except one which is full of spam

Need I go on? Rocksong 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need go on. The fact that the site isn't "official" is completely irrelevant. The number of members they have is irrelevant. The fact that it's "just a blog" is not a strike against it. Your claim that "there's no Judit Polgar news which can't easily be found elsewhere" is just wrong -- this is the only site I know of that has all the JP content (including video) in one place, and in chronological order -- the very definition of "easily found". I don't consider spending a lot of time scouring lots of different pages from lots of different sites to be "easily found". The fact that the message boards aren't used is irrelevant. (Since when is that a criteria for External Links?) The reason the site should be listed is simple: It's exceptionally relevant, and there is no better, similar resource that we can list. (As soon as someone finds one, then of course it will be better to list that one instead.) In the meantime, I'm adding this extremely relevant and unique link back. -MichaelBluejay 08:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're right that the information is in one place, and that this counts for something. For me, it's still easily found elsewhere at TWIC or whatever, but I see how it could help some people, so if no others object I'll let it stay. Rocksong 09:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I don't think I've ever actually changed anyone's mind before. Now I feel guilty.
I agree that the site has its problems (it loads painfully slow for one), but it's still a good, dense resource about the topic. And again, as soon as any similar site is created or is found that does a better job of the same thing than this particular site, I'll be happy to support listing that other site instead of the current one. -MichaelBluejay 08:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing Style absent

Why is there nothing about Polgar's playing style. There is something about playing style for every other player of the same caliber in Wikipedia. Could it be that women win without sytle?BashBrannigan (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section on her playing style. This was culled from sources on the web.BashBrannigan (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of that section is a non-sentence. I did not recover the intended meaning. It should be rendered into grammatical English. Dagme (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is grammatical, if a bit long-winded. The meaning is clear.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to improve article

I was thinking of ways to improve this article and one thing jumped out at me. In the career section there is a gap between 1996 and 2003 where nothing is covered. However, she must have been active. Does anyone know where I can find a listing of tournaments she played in, or any media coverage dealing with this period?BashBrannigan (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Male chauvinism in the guise of neutrality

Editors, male I'm sure, keep wanting to change Polgar from being called the greatest woman chessplayer ever in the article. There is no problem finding cited references which call her that. Her rating is far higher than any woman today and what other woman made it into the top 10 of men? What woman in history would be better? Vera Menchik? She beat a few good men and played well in a few tournaments, but it can't remotely compare to the competition Judit faced. I mean, Chessmetrics gives Vera a peak rating of 2422, for heavens sake![4] The easiest way out would be say "she is considered by some/many as the best ever" or some other type of moderation. While this is often a compromise on Wikipedia which works, it would be wrong in this case. Saying she isn't the best ever is blatant POV.BashBrannigan (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Judit Polgár was the strongest. Chessmetrics ranks Vera Menchik as world #42 so there is some reason for the comparison. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly rare on Wikipedia for an article to be able to say "is the greatest" or "is the most successful" because someone will always object- look at The Beatles where we're forced to fudge it and say "one of the most successful." As a result, drive-by editors occasionally come along, see "by far the strongest" in the opening paragraph and mistakenly think its "POV" or "hyperbole" or whatever and change it. In most cases they'd be right, but not here. I don't think it's male chauvinism, just ignorance of the fact that in this particular case, there is no doubt, and no other candidates - she is the strongest ever.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touch-move controversy title

There are three paragraphs under Touch-move controversy, but only the first one relates to the Touch-move issue. I tried to put in a heading for the next two paragraphs ("1995") to distinguish it from the Touch-move controversy, but another editor removed my heading. How can we make it clear that the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs under "Touch-move controversy" aren't actually about the Touch-move controversy? MichaelBluejay (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michaelbluejay. I've been working on upgrading the Polgar article and it is still a work-in-progress. I understood what you were trying to do and don't disagree with it, but felt your solution was worse than the problem. I removed your 1995 section as it implied there was something unique in 1995. My approach has been to use the sub-sections in the "Career" section to separate out distinct time periods in Polgar's career sometimes linked to specific events. I wanted to highlight the "Touch-move" incident, but probably shouldn't have made it a separate section as this event was not in that category. So, now I've simply added bolded text which does not create a section. If you feel it is still confusing, the best solution may be to have no heading at all. Thanks, BashBrannigan (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the Touch-move controversy should be highlighted somehow, because it's an important, distinctive event. I'm sure some readers will be looking for that, specifically. Anyway, I tried to fix this by putting the paragraph on the same line as the title. Will that work? MichaelBluejay (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Judit Polgár

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Judit Polgár. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Many or few?

Gary Kasparov has 2344 games at ChessGames.com, and that may not be all of them. He has probably played 1500 or so different opponents (my estimate). Only 74 have beaten him, I'd say that is relatively few. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chessbase has roughly 3,000 games by Kasparov. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factually we have 74 players who have beaten Kasparov, and Polgar is one of them. So the question is, should the article say "Polgar is one of few players to have beaten Kasparov", or should it say "Polgar is one of few players to have beaten Kasparov"? And saying "few people did XYZ" or saying "many people did XYZ" is meaningful as it conveys information about how significant was XYZ. 1500 is your estimate. I am all for including the actual number. When the common Wiki reader reads "few players" the belief is maybe 5 or 10. More accurate would be something like "over 70" (which of course factually is true), if not the complete truth (which would be 74). The intention should not be to mislead readers. Cheers, Nevadaone (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chessgames has a PGN download of all of the games. Unfortunately you have to be a premium (paid) member to download it. But you can look at Chessgames and count them. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"So the question is, should the article say "Polgar is one of few players to have beaten Kasparov", or should it say "Polgar is one of few players to have beaten Kasparov"?" What's the difference between the two?
Common sense has to play a part here. According to Wikipedia's other "Lists of players who have beaten..." 65 players have beaten Alekhine, 29 have beaten Capablanca, 37 have beaten Kasparov and 53 have beaten Fischer. Kasparov played far more games against far more opponents than any of those. Using "few" is reasonable and communicates better the achievement of beating Kasparov than just a number. Worse, changing it to "many", as a couple editors are doing, is blatantly misleading.BashBrannigan (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The unstated goal of the entire section (even the entire article) as currently written appears to be to mislead the reader. Much is made of Polgar defeating Kasparov, whereas in actual chess terms to have beaten a player 1 time in 17 games while losing 12 is far less impressive. I note that Bash is not only insistently changing "many" to "few", but also deleting the lifetime record of +1 -12 =4. To give the reader the most accurate information it should either be "many", or should be "greater than 70", and also include the lifetime record. I can understand that some editors believe they are fighting the good fight by highlighting Polgar's achievement, but the truth is that Polgar is best honored by the truth (which is quite impressive). Nevadaone (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To deliberately add Polgar's lifetime record against Kasparov and to change "few" to "many" is not intended to be "accurate" but to undermine the achievement of beating Kasparov. The article clearly puts this in context that it's an achievement for any player let alone a woman. When Nevadone says "To give the reader the most accurate information it should either be "many" he says this without justification. If he has a reference, someone who knows something about chess, that says 74 is a whole bunch of people, then please provide it. Otherwise, it's just his opinion. BashBrannigan (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about Polgar beating Kasparov, the most relevant statistic is the lifetime record, which you have no reason for deleting. Your intention is obviously to keep the accurate picture of the Polgar-Kasparov "rivalry" from the reader. As for your asking me to find someone "who knows about chess" the same could be asked of you when you write "few". Nevadaone (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The affect of adding Polgar's lifetime record against Kasparov in the context of her single victory is to say "Yes, she beat Kasparov once, but look how bad she did lifetime." There is no vital need in the article to clarify that Polgar's win doesn't mean she's better than Kasparov, there's only the transparent need to undermine the achievement. I don't need to justify "few" since it's not unreasonable. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point. An encyclopedia is not supposed to have a particular goal. Wiki is not supposed to be written according to as you put it "no vital need in the article to clarify that Polgar's win doesn't mean she's better than Kasparov". Wiki is supposed to provide COMPLETE information to the reader, and then let the reader draw the conclusions. Nevadaone (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But, it is complete as it is. What confusion are you trying to clear up? The only purpose I can see is that you're concerned people might think Polgar is better than Kasparov. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is in no way providing complete information to say "We are only going to talk about one particular game of Kasparov-Polgar, and not other games". You have an agenda "To not make Polgar look bad", for which reason you desire to provide information only about one particular game. I also have an agenda, is is "To provide complete information". I believe Wiki is compatible with my agenda, not yours. Nevadaone (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's silly. Most players have poor records against Kasparov and besides I always practice objectivity in editing on Wikipedia. I oppose it because the only reason for including it to say "yes, she beat Kasparov, but look how bad she did lifetime." You need to explain why it's needed and why "many players have beaten Kasparov". You've yet to do either. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is better if you cut out gratuitous and unconvincing insults like "that's silly", and try to talk about this rationally. To answer your question "You need to explain why it's needed and why "many players have beaten Kasparov"." it is necessary to give the reader a complete view of how Polgar fared against Kasparov, rather than your chosen partial view that suits your agenda. Nevadaone (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I’m writing this as a summary for other editors who care to weigh in. The debate is over a sentence about Polgar's win over Kasparov. This is the edit which I reverted:
“Polgar thus became one of the many players who have beaten Kasparov. Polgar's lifetime record against Kasparov is 12 losses, 1 win and 4 draws.”
I reverted it because it read like sarcasm and insulting POV. From the original edit the editor changed “few” to “many” and added the lifetime record. To me, the effect of the edit was to say “Yes, Polgar beat Kasparov, but look how badly she did life-time.” The edit's purpose isn't to add balance, but to minimize the achielvement. The article never even implies anything like Polgar is as good as Kasparov, but that it was a significant personal victory and ever more significant for a female.
I'm not saying the sentence is especially important, only that I should not be removed or changed for the reasons given. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can have a reasonable debate over whether it is best to characterize the number of players who have beaten Kasparov as "few" or not, but "many" is wrong. It is a simple fact that most of the many opponents Kasparov faced over his career never managed to defeat him even in a single game. We can work on an alternate wording that might satisfy the concerns of others, or perhaps we can remove it as I don't think it's essential to the article. Your revert was good because the version you reverted from was utter crap and a completely transparent attack on the subject. It could not stand. Quale (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 74 people out of 7 billion on the Earth is not "many". But let's seek a consensus wording. And many of those loses were when he was young or in a simultaneous exhibition. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to discuss "many" or "few" at all, and since that is a subjective interpretation I don't think we ought to go there (WP:SYNTH is relevant here). With an article devoted to beating Kasparov, it is sufficient to write "Judit Polgar is among the players who have defeated Garry Kasparov". I find any qualification "but many other players have done so and well, and this does not mean that Polgar is stronger than Kasparov", to be superfluous. Upset victories happen from time to time in just about any game or sport, and there is no need to spoonfeed the readers that the defeat of the no. 1 player doesn't mean that Polgar is better than the no. 1 player overall. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good solution. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, removing "few" seems fine. It was changing to "many" and the addition of her life-time record I objected to. Unless there's further comments, I'll make that change. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me begin by saying that suppression of relevant information in Wiki is never a good idea. As the article devotes so much space to the ONE GAME in which Polgar beat Kasparov, the information I added becomes relevant.

Bash, as for your saying that my edit "read like sarcasm and insulting POV", you should assume good faith. This article has entire paragraphs devoted to ONE GAME between Polgar and Kasparov, and also includes what Kasparov thought of Polgar. If Kasparov is to enter into such a major way into this article, and so much text is to be devoted to ONE GAME between Polgar and Kasparov, it is only NPOV to include ONE SENTENCE about Kasparov and Polgar lifetime records.

As for "few" or "many", essentially the point is that beating Kasparov in only one game is nothing special, well over 70 players have done so.

If the article does not have the information information I included, it will be a disservice to the readers as essentially it will give them a wrong impression.

Cheers,

Nevadaone (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above by Nevadone has already been addressed and answered by myself and others. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously think her achievement was "nothing special"? Really? It's one thing to beat Kasparov in a simul or when he was still in his teens (which is all that many of these "well over 70" managed) but quite another to defeat the number one player in the world, and as the article points out, she was the first female in any sport to achieve this. Devoting one paragraph to such a notable event is certainly justified.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To draw with Kasparov is special, to beat him is very special. But don't lose sight of the fact that Polgar was a top-10 grandmaster, a super GM. For a top-10 GM to beat Kasparov is nothing special. Polgar's achievements are too great to be defined by a single rapid win over Kasparov. Nevadaone (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Her achievements aren't defined by a single win, and the article does not say that they are. In fact her achievements aren't defined by any single thing, because she's achieved a lot. The length of the article is a good indication of that. Discussing this with you is a waste of time. Quale (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polgar-Kasparov Lifetime Record?

Besides the question about "few" or "many", as discussed above, there is also the question whether Polgar-Kasparov lifetime record should be included. As Kasparov is given so much space in the article, my belief is that it should be included.

The goal of Wiki is to provide the lay reader the most complete information. One should not suppress information for the fear that it would make a person look good or bad (of course as long as BLP is not violated).

Cheers,

Nevadaone (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new section doesn't change anything. Again, there's no relevancy in adding their lifetime record. As another editor said we don't need to "spoon feed" the reader the fact that Kasparov is better than Polgar. The effect of your edit would not be to add balance as no imbalance exists. The effect would only be to lessen the achievement. It's sole purpose is to say, "yes, Polgar beat Kadparov in this game, but look how bad she did lifetime." Kasparov is not given too much space. Kasparov made harsh comments of the Polgars in their early years, there was the Touch-move contraversy and there was Polgar's win all of which got substantial press coverage. His presence in the article is reflective of what was in the media and you should have known that. You have previously made a preposterous and obviously biased edit. I will continue to oppose this proposal which is only a tempered version of that. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Kasparov is so very present in this article, of course it is relevant to note his lifetime record against Polgar. What exactly are you afraid of that you wish to suppress this information? Nevadaone (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, give me a break! Everyone knows Kasparov is better. Don't lay all this on me. You aren't listening to what many people are telling you. Other editors were reverting your edits before this discussion even began. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Everyone knows Kasparov is better". Can't agree. If anything I would say more than half the world's population has never heard of Kasparov. The purpose of a Wiki article is to provide information, not assume that the readers are already knowledgeable about chess. Nevadaone (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You twisted my words to suit yourself. I clearly only said that everyone knew Kasparov was better because you ridiculously accused me of something to hide. Every argument you've made for several paragraphs now has already been dealt with by myself and others. I can see no benefit in continuing, but I will oppose the edits you've suggested. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your post doesn't make sense. Why would you say "Everyone knows Kasparov is better" as a reply to my asking why are you opposed to the lifetime record being included unless you really believe everyone knows Kasparov is better??? I can't say I have heard any good arguments why the lifetime record should not be included when Kasparov features rather prominently in this article. I will RfC in a couple of days on this issue. Nevadaone (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have been given good reasons (not arguments) why the lifetime record isn't appropriate for the article, but maybe you aren't capable of distinguishing good reasons from your off-base complaints. You'll get a chance to argue some more if you file an RFC. Quale (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest that it be worded to say that she won a game against (former) World Champion Garry Kasparov, which makes it clear that Kasparov is better, but the fact that he was a world champion is already mentioned at least twice. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bubba, thanks for your post. Couple of thoughts: 1) Whether Kasparov is better or not is something of a POV, whereas a lifetime record is numbers and factual. 2) If I were to say "Ivanchuk won against (former) World Champion Ponomariov" or say that "Ivanchuk won against (former undisputed) World Champion Kramnik", it should not imply that Ponomariov or Kramnik are better than Ivanchuk. It is actually very debatable that either is better than Ivanchuk. However a lifetime record is factual and the reader can draw whatever conclusions they wish from the numbers without being influenced by any bias. Cheers, Nevadaone (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think this article is or even should be all about comparing Polgár to Kasparov—you seem to be the only person who thinks this is of vital importance. In fact Judit Polgár says that her peak world rank was #8, and Garry Kasparov says that he was #1 and world champion for many years. Those are all factual and I don't think anyone other than you could have the slightest difficulty drawing the appropriate conclusion. Quale (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. When the entire article plays up Kasporav-Polgar rivalry so much, it is only natural for the reader to be curious about the over all record. What's the big deal in adding the factual details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.160.80 (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires context. There's no reason for providing their record and there is no Polgar-Kasparov rivalry. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I'm amazed at the incredibly hostile reaction BashBrannigan had to Nevadone's very even-keeled, reasonable suggestion. Lifetime records against great players are a normal thing to include in many biographies of great players, from Geller to Fischer to even Book! Since when is stating basic facts, RAW NUMBERS, "biased"? Especially when, as noted, Kasparov's games with Judit Polgar form such a huge portion of the article? The idea that "everyone knows Kasparov has a winning record against Judit Polgar", which BashBrannigan noted several times, is absolutely ridiculous. Since when is it an encyclopedia's job to assume what their readers know and thus purposefully omit it?! Also, I would argue this is NOT a widely-known fact. I honestly had no clue what Polgar's precise record against Garry Kasparov was until seeing it in this Talk page. And I've been following top-flight chess for the last 15 years and can probably recite a few hundred names of Top 100 FIDE players during that span, who won what major tournament, etc. off the top of my head. It seems BashBrannigan is very biased on this account. And look, I've agreed with him about other things relating to the article (the whole debate about whether Judit Polgar is the strongest female player ever by far or not), but this is an example of willfully disregarding FACTS because you're afraid they will make the subject look bad. That's blatantly dishonest, and I'm shocked more people haven't called this out.

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children

Although as a general rule I would be in favour of respecting privacy in relation to celebrities' children, she mentions their names on her website, so presumably she doesn't mind this being mentioned. It might be different if we were giving e.g. their exact dates of birth. PatGallacher (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We could even give exact dates if she had mentioned it. --MrsHudson (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized their names were mentioned on Polgar's website. If that is the case, then I have no problem with it. However, BLP talks about the privacy issue and names of children add nothing of substance to an understanding of the celebrity. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should "by far" be used in the lead and body of this article?

I created this new section since I posted at the WP:BLPN board. Please see the discussion at the very top about this. Thank you. --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove - Since this hardly seems measurable and really doesn't add anything of value. Also, reword to get rid of "strongest" and use maybe "talented" or "sucsessfull" or better suggestion. --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the best sources say - I'm more concerned that it is presented as a fact. I'd much rather something along the lines of, "She is widely acknowledged as (by far?) the strongest female player in history". Not "talented" (which is unprovable, maybe Menchik had more talent, who knows?) or "successful" (how do you measure success?). But we can say she is the considered the strongest female ever and have sources to back it up. If those sources say "by far", then we add it. If they don't, we don't. Adpete (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She is not "widely acknowledged", she is universally acknowledged as the strongest. I don't understand Threeafterthree's objection to "strongest" either - it quite clearly refers to "playing strength", which is measured by Elo ratings, and Polgar's Elo is "by far" the highest ever recorded by a female. I have no problem with the current wording.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawnkingthree, I was unaware of the whole "strongest" business when it comes to describing chess players. If this is "standard" verbage, ok, whatever. I really was more concerned with the "by far" since that is not encyclopediatic and can/could be hard to measure. --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PK3, do you think adding "Strength" to Glossary of chess w/ examples "strong position, "strong player", "strong tournament" (nuanced different from common dictonary def) is good idea? Completely unnecessary? Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current wording. It is a fact, not opinion, that she is "by far" the strongest in the history of chess. As said above, it is "universally" acknowledged because, based upon her career, nothing else is possible. No other woman has won a game from a male World Champion, Polgar has won games from NINE male world champions. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, Chiburdanidze has beaten Smyslov according to chessgames.com[5] Adpete (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smyslov was 71 years old at the time. Yes, he had been a World Champion... 41 years earlier! BashBrannigan (talk)
Not to beat the horse, but again, how do we measure "by far"? If a women has beaten, or beats in the future,1,2,3, or more male World Champions, then would the lead be changed to simply "the strongest ever" or even "one of the strongest ever" ect.? --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC) ps Koneru Humpy looks very strong, but Adpete makes probably the best point to defer to what RS have to say on the matter when comparing the top women, especially recent ones if available. --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, not to disparage Koneru, but she has yet to crack the top 100. She might one day, but more importantly, she is likely already too old to match Polgar's achievements. Koneru is 24, by the time Polgar was 24 she was already winning games from the world's best male players... Karpov and Spassky to name a couple. Second, it might seem I'm being unreasonable about the "by far" and should be satisfied with just "strongest ever", but it is important, simply because it's true. There is no woman who achieved anything remotely close to what Polgar has done. "Strongest ever" could simply mean 1% better than any other woman. There are more than enough published references to support "by far" (or it's equivalent). BashBrannigan (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spassky was well past his best, and I don't think she beat Karpov in a classical game until he was well past his best either. I really don't like the 9 world champions bit because once you exclude rapid games, players not at their peak, and disputed world champions, there's not much left. Her achievements are extraordinary and don't need to be exaggerated. Adpete (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wording. I agree w/ Bash – "by far" conveys important context/information. And it's hard to conceive doing so more efficiently or precisely. (E.g. what's gained by doubling the number of words to "by an unprecedented margin"? It just gets unnecessarily wordy.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic example of a biased Wiki article

The bias of this article is so obvious that it is actually quite funny. When I came to this article today, it grandly proclaimed "World champions against whom Polgár has won games are Anatoli Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Boris Spassky, Vasily Smyslov..."

Going through the article today, I found no mention of Polgar losing a game to either Kramnik or Kasparov (except for the touch move controversy). In the real world she has lost 21 (yes, that's not a typo, it really is 21) games to Kramnik while winning 1. Against Kasparov her record is 12 losses, 1 win.

This article just shows that if there are enough editors ready to invest time to maintain a bias, then that bias will remain in a Wiki article.

Ta da — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.194.218.183 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that she won games from previous world champions is significant, unprecedented actually, because no other female has defeated even one male world champion even in a single game. I suppose the lead could be reworded to reflect this, but the lead indicates she is 47rd in the world, so it's clear the article isn't saying she is better than Kasparov or Kramnik, if that's your fear. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spin it anyway you want, the statistics can't be changed.

She has won one game each against Kasparov and Kramnik, while losing 12 and 21 games to these players.

In the article, there are more than a dozen mentions of how she beat these players, while ZERO mention of them beating her (except for the Kasparov touch-move game).

So we have 20-0 mentions of wins, while real world is 2-33. Pathetic biased article.

Da da — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.194.218.183 (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Statistics can't be changed," but they can be irrelevant. Again, the point is that Polgar is the only woman to have ever won even a single game against any World Champion. The fact that she has won games against several is unprecedented. Her overall record doesn't diminish that fact. To include the overall record for the sole purpose to ensure there's no confusion that she's not as good as them would be irrelevant and petty. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be a better thing to actually include the point (i.e., that Polgar is the only woman who has defeated a World Champ, etc., as above) in the text to give context to the list of Champs she defeated? (Then perhaps the misinterpretation complained about would mostly be prevented, too.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! (I see above you suggested this already. So I support that idea.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I tried something. (If you don't like, just revert.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, "statistics can be irrelevant" just like the real world can be irrelevant in Wiki if there are enough editors with time and passion for maintaining a bias. Sad pathetic little article! TDD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.194.218.183 (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First time ever that Female#1 beat Male#1 in any sport

While this claim is sourced from a news article, it is entirely inaccurate. Rui Naiwei, the Go Player who is considered the strongest female to ever play the game, won the Korean Guksu title in 1999, beating the then undisputed world #1 Lee Changho and world #2 Cho Hunhyeon in the process. The circumstances of that win was also notable in that before this competition, she had been expelled by the Chinese Go association and was dividing her time teaching in Japan and the US before she finally settled in South Korea. The 1999 Guksu was one of the first Tournaments she played in after joining the Korean Go Association and she was severely out of practice. This win was not a fluke either as Rui managed to beat Lee another 5 times after this and had at one point extended their personal head-to-head to 6:2, a score difference which under the old Jubango system, would have forced Lee to take a handicap in their next game. It was an absolutely ridiculous score-line and countless theories have been devised to explain it, or explain it way. The chess equivalent would be Polgar destroying Kasparov so thoroughly that in their next game Polgar must play without her f pawn to account for the apparent difference in strength.

Another perspective: when Hou Yifan defended her WWC title against Koneru this last week, a large part of the Chinese blogosphere seemed more interested in a comparison between Rui and Polgar than between Polgar and Hou. Wikidness69 (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quote, even though it is sourced, could to be hyperbole, however, I've yet so far to see any evidence that it isn't accurate. The use in the article can be amended, but you will need to provide a source that: Rui Naiwei won over a male who was #1 at a time, and it occurred before Polgar's win. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link on the Guksu Title with dates (1999 Rui Naiwei etc) and a short description of Rui's win is pasted below: http://senseis.xmp.net/?Kuksu

"The winners of Kuksu title (as a tournament title) are one of the two strongest players at the time -- mostly the strongest. Imagine the shock-wave Rui Naiwei, a woman and foreigner, created by winning the title and furthermore beating the two best players, Yi Ch'ang-ho and Cho Hun-hyeon, en route! Rui was honored for a Woman of the Year by the Korean government for the coup."

I believe the only other piece of information you need would be evidence that Lee was the #1 player in the world in 1999. Try the following link: http://questforshodan.blogspot.com/2011/01/43rd-guksu-rui-naiweis-march-to-top.html

The reason you see words like "consideredItalic text to be the world #1 Go player by many" is because there is no standardized rating system in Go (each country has their own) and no singular world championship. But, international titles have been used as a benchmark since their advent in 1989. These are basically equivalent to Linares or Dortmund but with 32/64 player elimination rather than round robin. Incidentally, the winner of an international title is referred to in the Chinese/Japanese/Korean press as a 'world champion'. And by this criteria (as well as by any other, eg domestic title wins, domestic rating, win ratio, winning streak etc), there is absolutely no doubt that from 1995 to 1999, Lee was the best player in the world. His record was 11 wins out of 24 available titles, leaving 7 other players sharing the remaining 13. This dominance continued with a slitely dimished but still world leading ratio of 7 out of 20 from 2000-2003. These are all easily verifiable on Chinese/Japanese/Korean websites as well as on English Wiki, though split into pages dedicated to each title individually. Wikidness69 (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judit_Polgár&oldid=472534633"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy