Talk:Magnus Carlsen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMagnus Carlsen has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 4, 2013Good article nomineeListed
January 18, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 3, 2010, January 2, 2013, and November 22, 2013.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 22, 2023.
Current status: Good article

2023 Details[edit]

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

Thank you for starting a discussion of this question here on the talk page.
In general, we should adhere to WP:NOTNEWS, which advises us that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style." In editing Magnus Carlsen, we would normally mention his participation in Tata Steel 2023, both because he finished second in a strong and prestigious tournament, and because he is world champion. But we would wait until the tournament was over, and then write only a summary, stating that he finished second, but he lost two games. And that would be all. We should not list the names of the people he beat, nor should we talk about the issue of Ding's rating going under 2800.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the readership of Magnus Carlsen consists mainly of people who are looking up his name because they don't know who he is. It is unrealistic to try to compete with chess.com and chess24 for the attention of people following the latest news. Unlike those websites, we do not have paid journalists who can interview the players, and who can competently analyze their games, and who can do research on the subjects about which they are writing.
By the way, in editing Richard Rapport, I am not sure we should even mention his participation in Tata Steel 2023, because he only finished in the middle of the field, not even getting a plus score. But I could be wrong about this, perhaps experienced editors of chess articles might disagree with me.
Getting back to Magnus Carlsen: because we do not have our own journalists, we are getting our facts from other places, such as chess.com or chess24. We are required to cite those sources. Not only is it necessary for those sources to get credit, but also, it is necessary for readers to be able to find and read the articles that we have read. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruce leverett Thank you for clearing my concern about the details as mentioned above , I will try to keep details about other players updated in the same way . SHU KURENAI 23 (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image dispute - 2021 WCC image is better[edit]

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

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

Vague attribution[edit]

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

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

The 'Notes: interactive games' tab should be merged with the main 'Notes' tab[edit]

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

All-time highest-rated blitz and rapid player = no mention[edit]

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

@Vehvilæinen: feel free to go ahead and add a mention to the article. LittlePuppers (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's a record does not imply that it needs to be mentioned in the article. There is no hard-and-fast criterion for what to put into the article and what not to, but one useful criterion is notability. If you can find one or more articles in the chess press (print or online) that mention his record-high blitz and/or rapid ratings, you can mention them in the article, and cite the article(s). On the other hand, if you can't find such an article, chances are the rest of the world just does not care about these high ratings, and mentioning them in the article would be just nerdy. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right. It seems that the internet had very little interest in it. However, can't see it as nerdy... Vehvilæinen (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GOAT again[edit]

Should this edit by SpyroeBM be reverted?

This matter has been discussed before here:

Talk:Magnus Carlsen/Archive 2#GOAT

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 37#GOAT

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

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

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

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

I do not have anything to add to the discussion in Talk:Magnus Carlsen/Archive 2#GOAT. By way of clarification, when that discussion took place, there were still "GOAT" statements in the lead paragraphs of Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov, but those have since been removed.
In a nutshell (in case the reader does not want to click through to that discussion), there was consensus that GOAT statements, no matter how carefully supported by citations to references, are generally not helpful things to have in biographies of chess world champions. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two different birth years[edit]

1989 in the introduction and 1990 later. 76.236.30.55 (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]