Talk:Alexander Alekhine/Archive 1

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

Discrepancy!

Lisbon or Estoril? The caption and text disagree. DanielCristofani 01:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Blindfold games

He was famous for playing a large number of games blindfolded. 126.210.150.76 22:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation

Ok, this is my first time creating an IPA pronunciation, so let me try on the talk page first... Александр Александрович Алéхин.. well first of all, it's Алёхин, not Алéхин.

(IPA: [alʲɛk'sandr alʲɛk'sandrovʲiʨ a'lʲoxin] ).

That looks good. I'll add it to the article. However, I just referred to the article on Russian phonology to pick the right IPA sounds to mimic the Russian pronunciation of his name, so IPA experts are more than welcome to correct any IPA faux pas. CasualFighter 16:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not Алёхин, but Алéхин. Please consult the russian version [1]. ("произносится через «е», а не через «ё»") If you want to know why Alekhine wanted to be spelled with -ye- and not -yo- take a look here: [2], where Hans Kmoch says "While reading those articles, I remembered that Alekhine used to get angry if his name was pronounced Al-YOH-khin, the way Russians sometimes pronounced it. The correct Russian pronunciation, he said, was Al-YEH-khin, explaining that the name was derived from that of a tree (*alyesha*) that grew abundantly near one of his family's estates. "Al-YOH-khin," he claimed, was a Yiddish distortion of his name, like Trotsky for Troitsky or Feigl for the German Vogel." Miastko 19:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
So it is Алéхин! Funny, it turns out I mispronounced it for years. Well, that's the advantage of working on wikipedia - you learn something new every day... It's surprising that he blamed Yiddish speakers for distortions in his name, though. Most Russian speakers (me included) would think that it's derived from the name Алёша. Thank you for correcting me! CasualFighter 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, Alekhine was a known Anti-Semite. Best regards, Miastko
I think it's highly likely that the name was, in fact, Алёхин (from Алёша). The derivation from алéша sounds to me like a fabrication to justify the allegation of "Yiddish distortion" of his name. Алёхин ("Al-YO-khin") is the only Russian pronuncation I've ever heard. Dodiad
"МОЯ ФАМИЛИЯ, БАТЮШКА, АЛЕХИН, А НЕ ОЛЁХИН" - if you know Russian, please take a look at this: [3] Miastko 20:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Telegram

Some sections of this article look like a telegram more than an encyclopedia article, such as "Approaching the top level". That section just states "<insert date>, [alekhine] won <insert tournament>". Is this considered correct? --Taraborn 10:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think they (summary sentences for section headings) work well for an encyclopedia article. I might try to make some more appropriate headings (and probably a few less - 24 is too much). Peter Ballard 12:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A Matter of Life and Death

The chess book brandished by Marius Goring is named aloud by him, as by Philidor, the 18th century French master.

I don't recall Alekhine's book(s) appearing. I believe those were published in 1948, two years after the film came out.

Bandalore 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make it up. You need to watch the film again, and in future don't make changes until you're certain that you know what you're talking about. User:jimdpie

Retitle "Contributions" to "Assessment"?

I suggest retitling "Contributions" to "Assessment" so that this section can cover: his playing style and peak strength; his writings; possibly the point that his relative weakness in the mid- to late 1930s paved the way for the FIDE World Championship system of the 1950s and 1960s (Candidates' tournament modelled on 1938 AVRO tournament, which was designed to select a challenger for Alekhine); other similar, relevant topics. Philcha (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol abuse

I remember that this article made many references to alcohol abuse as a major cause for his defeat against Euwe, but now I can't find a single appearance of the words "alcohol", "drink" and so. Why was all that removed? Was that just untrue? --Taraborn (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted! It should be discussed. I've added material to Max Euwe that deals with whether alcoholism was a factor in the 1935 match, and I'll adapt it for Alexander Alekhine in a few days if no-one objects or adds more detailed coverage first. Philcha (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Great job on the Max Euwe article Philcha! I was pretty sure that the alcoholism story was just that, a story, but I did not have the references to back it up. Since there were also no references to back the alcoholism, I just removed it. --KarlFrei (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That's awesome, thanks :D --Taraborn (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly true that Alekhine gave up drinking (and smoking) for the 1937 match. (e.g. "From Morphy to Fischer" by Israel Horowitz). But it's also true that most commentators don't attribute the 1935 result to Alekhine's alcoholism, at least not directly. (Horowitz notes that in 1937 Alekhine was in better physical and mental shape). Peter Ballard (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"most commentators don't attribute the 1935 result to Alekhine's alcoholism" - but the question / urban myth / whatever needs to be covered in this article, and I hope I've done that concisely but clearly. Re "in 1937 Alekhine was in better physical and mental shape", if you can be more specific and provide a ref, that would be great. Philcha (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Controversy

Someone who knows more about this should expand this section. If these papers were published under his name, the presumption is that he wrote them. However, the authors of the section seem to imply a heavy bias that there is a dispute. Did Alekhine deny having written the articles? If so, is there evidence that would suggest that we should believe him -- I imagine there would be, but this should be demonstrated.

"However, there is no record of Alekhine having ever denied the authorship of the articles, even after the War. On the other hand, the very controversy is widely recognized as tainted by post-war political preconceptions, and thus became obsolete." Obsolete? Surely a wrong use of the word. Does anyone object to my removing the phrase 'and thus became obsolete'?

AllenHansen (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Present tournament results as tables?

The main sections of this article present Alekhine's tournament results as short sentences in a long paragraph. I think it would be a lot easier to read the results if they were presented as tables with columns "Date", "Tournament name/ location" (name caters for e.g. the 1938 AVRO travelling circus), "Alekhine's placing", "Notes". The "Notes column" could contain various combinations of, for example: "without losing a game", "X points ahead", "ahead of A, B, and C", "behind Keres and Fine (first equal), ahead of ...". What do you think? Philcha (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I realise tables in the body of the article would be rather long, so we could consider other options. For the sake of completeness I'll list all the main ones I can see at the moment:

  1. Leave it as is.
  2. Result tables in each chronological section.
  3. Result tables at the foot of the article. Each chronological section would simply summarise (e.g. X first places out of Y tournments) and mention most notable results (e.g. great at San Remo 1930 and Bled 1931; poor at Nottingham 1936) and any other relevant points (e.g. the 1938 AVRO travelling circus was hardest on the older players).
  4. Result tables in a separate "list" article. Each chronological section would simply summarise and comment (as in previous option). This option would leave more space for other topics, e.g.: Nazism and other "personality" issues; why no re-match with Capablanca; assessment of his play; his writings (articles as well as books); whether Alekhine's post-1935 weakness and failure to hold a re-match with Capablanca contributed to development of post-WW2 FIDE championship system. Philcha (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My first thought is that option 3 would be best, but it shouldn't limit the ability of the article to include the issues mentioned in option 4. Multiple tables (option 2) don't seem to be a real benefit. A separate article would make sense if the table was too lengthy. I've sometimes considered whether we should have a separate article with a table of Bobby Fischer's tournament and match record. One general issue is that of what to leave out. Players in the 19th or early 20th century generally played a fairly small number of international tournaments in their entire careers. With the explosion of tournaments in the second part of the 20th century, today a career can include hundreds of tournaments—too much to be worth exhaustively detailing here, I think. Just listing all of Anatoly Karpov's tournament wins (>170) would be a chore. Anyway, an early attempt I made at summarizing a modest career in a table can be found at Herman Steiner. Quale (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please, do something. It's absolutely tedious to read those passages. --Taraborn (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've done 1909-1914, what do you think of the result? Remember that what I've done is about 1/3 of Alekhine's tournaments before he became world champion. If we go ahead like this, someone will have to check agaisnt Khalifman's "Alexander Alekhine Games 1902-1922 Volume 1" (I used Alekhine's own book; I don't have Khalifman's) for earlier tournaments and for any that aren't in this list.
Does Khalifman present results in the same level of detail? Philcha (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The table is good! However the results should also be removed from the text (currently they're in both). A continuous roll-call of tournament reuslts in the text makes for very boring reading. Only the most important tournaments should be in the text. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it looks great. I changed the table formatting a bit, and made some of the columns narrower to fit better on the screen. (One nice thing about using piped links to shorten names is the balloon text on mouse hover will disambiguate Lasker and Lasker if you wait a moment without requiring clicking on the link.) If I did too much violence to your work, feel free to revert my changes. Quale (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouraging comments. And thanks, Quale, for reformatting. The one thing I'll change is to put spaces in the scores, as without spaces the / gets lost in e.g. 8½/13
One thing I'm still concerned about is whether Khalifman's more complete sets of results give the same amountof detail about each as Alekhine's. I'd be very grateful if anyone can check this, as I don't have Khalifman's editions of Alekhine's games.
I'm also concerned about the length. I guesstimate that the table at present (1909-1914) covers about 1/8 of A's tournaments. I'd be happy to go ahead if we agree that as a fall-back position we can create a separate "list of" article.Philcha (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll hold off adding further lines to the table until these points resolved, since it's not exactly fun.
When the table is complete for a section of A's career I'll change the text in that section to a summary (high spots, low spots, other comments) as described above. Philcha (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I expanded the table to include all of Alekhine's tournament results I had at hand, which is a fairly complete list before 1940 originally published in Chess Review after Alekhine's death. I took the spaces out of the scores accidentally on purpose—the table is much wider than I'd like but I wouldn't have taken them out again if I had remembered that you intentionally restored them. Coming back to the talk page jogged my memory, but too late. You can space the results again if you like. I actually prefer it without the spaces as you expect to find a / in every entry in that column and I don't think they're too hard to pick out, but YMMV. The table still needs results from 1940 on, and possibly also a table for match results. Quale (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Quale, thanks for extending the tournament table! I'm afraid I can't take it any further as I only have A.'s best games up to 1937. I'll edit the text sections to focus on highlights / summaries. Philcha (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
PS I've added refs for games up to & including the 2nd Euwe match. Please add refs for later games :-)
PPS Do you know how sortable tables are implemented? Can anyone create a template that includes custom Javascript? And can a template create the custom CSS used in the table? Philcha (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"WW1" and "Leaves Russia for France"

At present the "WW1" section includes his experiences during / just after the Russian Revolution and 2 notable tournaments - but these are mentioned in 2 sentences at the end of a long paragraph. Some options to deal with this:

  1. Re-title the "WW1" section to "WW1 and post-revolutionary Russia". Make the 2 tournaments a separate paragraph. Leave "Leaves Russia for France" as is. I'd still want to re-title "WW1" to "WW1 and post-revolutionary Russia".
  2. Re-title "Leaves Russia for France" to "Chess career 1920-1927". Move Moscow and USSR Championship tournaments to a new 1st para in this section.

I think both of these are better than the current arrangement because they make the resumption (successful) of his chess career more visible, and that the choice depends on whether we want to emphasise the chess career or the biographical aspects. Personally I'd prefer option 2, as it's chess that makes Alekhine notable. Any comments or suggestions? Philcha (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A-class

This article is currently being assessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Review, please join the discussion. Voorlandt 07:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the review and the article has failed its test for A-class. Now it is assessed as GA-class. You can find the reasons and hints for improvement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review SyG 10:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see the archived discussion hereunder: SyG (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Review of Alexander Alekhine

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

Name

Although I can't think of a better way to format the list of spellings of A.'s surname, I feel it takes up too much space too early, as if it's a wall between mne and the real content. Since this was an almost instinctive reaction, other readers might feel the same way. I suggest a short final para in the intro, e.g. "A.'s surname is spelt quite differently in different languages", with a footnote showing the list of spellings. Philcha (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it may not be appropriate to place it as the first section, as this is only minor information compared to the other sections. However I do not think your suggestion would be completely satisfying, because the Lead must only sum up the other sections, not replace them. What about:
  • just moving the "Name" section in last place ?
  • put a footnote directly after the first phrase in the Lead ?
SyG (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Succeeded by

In the World Championship succession box it says Succeeded by "The Interregnum and then Mikhail Botvinnik". This sounds very clumsy and unnecessary to me. I know there was a gap but he wasn't succeeded by an interruption. He was succeeded by Botvinnik, even if it took a couple of years. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. I don't think "Interregnum" can succeed anybody. Looking at Mikhail Botvinnik, however, I see that that article doesn't explain Alekhine's death or how the title came about well at all. It's hard for me to believe that that wasn't better explained there before. Quale (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I see there's another approach used, which would simply say the title is vacant and why (death in this case). See Template:s-vac. This is part of a rather more complex set of succession box templates than the ones we use now. Quale (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I like Quale's suggestion to use Template:s-vac - makes it plain there was no champion and still provides and opportunity to link to The Interregnum. Philcha (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
On a further look, IMO Template:s-vac is rather too complicated even for handling the Interregnum (see the full-strength version at Charles I of England ). But it might be useful for the split world championship 1993-2006. Philcha (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Philcha's notes

A few useful snippets I found while searching for refs for the GA review:

Philcha (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review

I'll be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some things to fix before it can be promoted:

note for information: the GA-review of Nikki311 has been started on the basis of this version. SyG (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved
  •  Done In the section directly above this, an editor mentions the odd formatting of his different name spellings. I agree that a footnote might be the best way to go. However, I have to ask...is listing the different spellings of his name entirely necessary? Most names (countries, people names, etc.) are spelled differently in different languages, so what does it add to the article? Another option is to add "Алекса́ндр Алекса́ндрович Але́хин Russian, pronounced [alʲɛkˈsandr̠ alʲɛkˈsandr̠ovʲiʨ aˈlʲɛxin][1]" to the lead (since he is Russian, it makes sense to include the Russian spelling and pronunciation)".
I agree about including the Russian and phonetic spellings. Re the others, there is a genuine problem with the transliteration of Russian and other Slavonic and Baltic names. I've seen Aljechin and Alekhin in books. Other problematic names include Nimzowitsch/Nimzowitch/Nimzovich/Niemtsowitsch and Chigorin/Tchigorin. The text of Nimzowitsch article ignores the problem; the article can be reached via Nimzovich and Nimzowitch but not via Niemtsowitsch. The Chigorin article ignores the othe rspelling and casnnot even be reached via Tchigorin, although Google immediately showed me an [English-language book that spells his name that way http://www.amazon.com/Love-Affair-Tchigorin-E-Santasiere/dp/0875682596]. Is there a general Wikpeidia (English) policy on names that that are translitered differently in various English-language sources? Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure. I'll definitely look. Nikki311 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Include alternatives: If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph and a list of them in a separate section or footnote to avoid cluttering the lead; see Freyr for an example of this. - Nikki311 02:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Great, that works perfectly for Alekhine/Aljechin/Alekhin and Chigorin/Tchigorin. Might have to stretch it just a litte for Nimzowitsch/Nimzowitch/Nimzovich/Niemtsowitsch. Many thanks! Philcha (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go, what do you think? Philcha (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That seems fine for me, although others could consider the section "Name" is now too short and could just go into a footnote. I have no idea what is best. SyG (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would do it like it is written in the example article Freyr. Put the English and Russian in the lead and everything else in a footnote. Eliminate the name section altogether. Nikki311 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Done Philcha (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Full dates (month, date, and year) should be linked.
Forgive me for asking but why? Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web. Also, fully linked dates automatically format to a user's preference: linking May 19, 2008 could format as May 19, 2008 or 19 May, 2008 depending on how the user sets it up. Nikki311 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The first 2 points don't convince me, but the third does - I'm a Brit but have spent some time in the USA, so I'm rather aware of differences in date fomrat - thanks. Philcha (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, but I've just noticed that Voorlandt's "oppose" on the Aug 2007 A-class review (above) appears to interpret Wikipedia:Context the opposite way - or have I misunderstood one or both of you? Philcha (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I see a contradiction. Voorlandt's review above states in his fourth bullet point that "per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked", which seems to be exactly what Nikki311 talks about. Could you please explain a bit where you see a contradiction ? SyG (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, now I think I have understood your concern, as there seems to be a contradiction between the second bullet point and the fourth bullet point in Voorlandt's review. I think there just is a subtle difference between "partial dates" like "2008" or "May" or "18 May" that should not be linked, and "full dates" like "18 May 2008" that should be linked. I will work on that in the article (hoping I am not wrong!). SyG (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have fixed the ones I have found, please tell if I forgot some or if my interpretation of this rule is incorrect. SyG (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. SyG, you are correct. Nikki311 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, whoever did this thankless task. Philcha (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Does ref 4 cover all the info in the World War I and post-revolutionary Russia section? If not, that section needs some more citations.
Ref 4 is meant to cover all of that confused period. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought so, but I just wanted to make sure. Nikki311 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done "When conditions in Russia became more settled Alekhine proved he was still Russia's best player." - peacock
I don't think it's peacock (unlike the item in the intro), as there's evidence - he won 2 tournaments out of 2, one of which was retrospectively declared the first USSR Championship. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have rephrased the paragraph in order to put it in a more neutral and factual way. SyG (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If I checked Chessmetrics for 1920 I'm confident no other Russian-born player would be within 10 places in the world rankings, and would be astounded if there was one within 5 places. Philcha (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done The last paragraph of the lead is full of WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK terms. He is the greatest according to who?
Dunno. Not "Warriors of the Mind" or Chessmetrics. It should be removed. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A few months I suggested retitling "Contributions" to "Assessment" (above) - see Wilhelm Steinitz and Mikhail Botvinnik for examples. I know it's rather late in the game to consider doing this for Alekhine, but it would make it easy to include various assessments of his ranking among world champs, e.g "Warriors of the Mind", Chessmetric, plus Elo if I can find a source. It would be hard to avoid a "personality" sub-section, since that's a controversial point. But I can find some material not already covered under marriages, alcoholism and anti-Semitism. I reckon I can produce an "Assessment" section at about a day's notice. What do you think? Philcha (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand the problem with having WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK terms in the Lead, as long as these statements are also found in the other sections of the article where they are suitably referenced. Could you explain a bit further ? SyG (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
"Warriors of the Mind" and Chessmetric rate A relatively low in the list of world champs. As "Warriors of the Mind" puts it, it's hard to rise to the very top on the backs of Bogoljubov and Euwe, i.e. the opposition he crushed in the early 1930s was not that impressive. I'll deal with this in "Assessment" (next note). Philcha (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with an assessment section, as long as everything is sourced and not POV. When you say that someone is the best at something, you really should have a source to back it up where someone prominent in the field says it. Nikki311 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you check the other chess articles I mentioned, you'll see what I mean. They're well sourced and most of the ranking is done via 2-3 well-known statical systems (w refs). It will be done by end of Thurs 22 May. Philcha (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The new section "Playing strength and style" looks good to me, giving several references for the fact that Alekhine was among the greatest. That means the statement in the Lead is supported by this paragraph, so unless Nikki311 thinks otherwise I would consider this point as done. SyG (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Between dates, use the "–" instead of the "-" per MOS:DATE.
I hope I have fixed all, tell me if otherwise. SyG (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done The fourth paragraph in Contributions and legacy needs refs.
Yes Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This fourth paragraph of the former section "Contribution and legacy" has been transformed in the fourth paragraph of the subsection "Influence on the game" in the section "Assessment". Philcha has added a reference to each sentence, so I would consider this as done. SyG (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Then the next thing is someone will grumble about accessdates being missing. Is there a bot for accessdate? Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Accessdates taken care of, for the most part. A bunch of the cite webs repeat the url for the title. Gimmetrow 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I hope the pages all actually have titles. Philcha (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have worked on the references today and I think they are now all using "cite web", or "cite book" or "citation", including accessdates. So I would consider this as done. SyG (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done The article is pretty long, and I don't think the lead summarizes it completely. The lead needs to be about four full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.
Yes - probably when the other items are resolved. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Philcha has tremendously expanded the Lead and now it summarises all the main points of the article (I consider the "improvement" stuff as too anecdotic to be in the Lead), so I believe this is done. SyG (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done "Alekhine was first introduced to chess by his mother, an older brother Alexei, and an older sister Varvara (Barbara)." - source?
Reliable source might be the problem, rumours and urban myths cluster round formative years of many notable people. I'd delete if not easily resolved. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Found a ref for this, don't know how reliable. Much of the stuff on the web is Wikipedia clones (often old) and summaries. Can anyone with a decent book help in this? (e.g. Khalifman). Philcha (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added another reference, from a different website. However I share Philcha's concerns that most of what is on the Web is suspect of being copied from Wikipedia, so I would very much like someone to add a paper reference, if possible. SyG (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done There are several paragraphs in World Chess Champion, first reign (1927-35) that need references.
Agreed. I think the 2 main ones are: not having a re-match with Capa, which will need a bit of research as IIRC there are conflicting accounts; A's playing record, which summarises the tables below, and the same refs will do. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on this and have added some. I'll report progress on "World Chess Champion, first reign (1927-35)" here as I work through it:
Outstanding items:
  •  Done I doubt the statement about honorary colonel in Mexican army - see The 1998 Chess Cafe Holiday Quiz (one of whose authors is the chess historian Taylor Kingston).
This has been removed from the text. SyG (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Ref for "only seven out of 238 games in tournament play"
This has been removed from the text. SyG (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Ref for world record blindfold simul. Fine's Great Chess Games confirms all except score. Philcha (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are talking about the Paris world record in 1925, I have added a reference to chessgames that gives the score. SyG (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Might flow better if paras reordered, e.g.: tournament record; then no Capa rematch; Bogo matches 1 & 2; world tour / simuls; move 4th marriage to bottom of section. What do you think?
  •  Done Ref for Bogo match 2 (1934).
I have added a reference. SyG (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Ref(s) for Chess Olympiads.
I had a look at the table and you seem to have taken care of that yourself, so this is done. SyG (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Refs for Capa rematch issue.
I have reshaped the paragraph to avoid describing the negociations. SyG (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Ref for "By late 1943, Alekhine was spending all of his time in Spain and Portugal, ..."
I have added two references supporting this claim. SyG (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Philcha (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems all paragraphs of the section "World Chess Champion, first reign (1927-35)" have some references now, so I would consider this as done. SyG (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The article could use a really good copy edit.
Could you please be more specific? Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is mostly comma problems. If everything else gets sorted out, then I have no problem fixing those myself. Nikki311 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You want to add them or remove some? Might be a dialect issue; I've noticed many Wikipedia editors use commas to an extent that I was taught (in Scotland) to regard as excessive :-) Philcha (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately as I am not a native speaker I am not able to fix that myself. I have seen Krakatoa doing some copyedit on this article three days ago, I do not know if that solves the comma issues. Maybe we could ask him to give a look to the article and fix problems he may detect ? SyG (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done The last paragraph in Contributions and legacy needs some refs. Also, it is a bit confusing (maybe because I know nothing about chess?)
It does.
Don't take this personally, but why are you reviewing the article if you know nothing about chess? I don't think it has actually made a difference in this particular case, but that's just luck. To put it another way, I don't think it was fair to put you in a potentially tricky position. Philcha (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't take that personally. It is just an unfortunate part of the GA Review process. It is good, though, as articles are supposed to be accessible to all readers, so someone who is familiar with all-things chess may not know that it is hard to understand for someone else. Nikki311 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate "supposed to be accessible to all readers", in fact I've been on that side of a few debates about presentation and / or assumed prior knowledge (Cambrian explosion is a real tough one). Perhaps reviews shoud be done by pairs, one with and one without prior knowledge. Philcha (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've re-read the para and think it's perfectly clear for a player but I don't see how to explain it to a non-player without a complete article on the rules. The best I can do is wikilink five queens. Any ideas, anyone? Philcha (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
"but a recently discovered photo from that game in progress shows a position which could never have occurred in the game quoted by Alekhine against that opponent from the tournament." - this is the part I find confusing. So Alekhine said the game went one way, but the photo showed that it could not have possibly happened? I think the wording is just awkward. Nikki311 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Alekhine was accused of tarting up a few game scores (the recorded moves) to make them more impressive. Best way to decide on wording is to find a ref, preferably with a copy of the pic and details, and see how that puts it. Philcha (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the confusing sentence, trying to explain it at length so that the issue gets clearer. Unless someone states otherwise, I would consider this as done. SyG (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Misc notes:

The article will be placed on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. After the hold is up, I will reassess the article and decide whether to pass or fail it. If the editors of this article have no intention of fixing these problems within the seven days (or don't have time) I would appreciate it if they could let me know, so I can move on to other articles. Thanks! Good luck! Nikki311 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is getting unwieldy, so here are the outstanding items. I'll add any others that crop up. Any help would be much appreciated!

  • Ref for 1939 negotiations for Capa-A. title match. (I have sources for both Botvinnik and Keres negotiating for a title match then - confusion in text?).  Done
I do not see these negotiations in the text anymore, so this is done. SyG (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately not done. I was not clear enough in my last comment. There are good sources for both Botvinnik and Keres negotiating after AVRO 1938 for a title match; the article should and does refer to these.
The problem is the paragraph "Supported by Latin-American financial pledges, Capablanca challenged Alexander Alekhine to a world title match in November. Tentative plans not, however, actually backed by a deposit of the required purse ($10,000 in gold), led to a virtual agreement to play at Buenos Aires, Argentina beginning April 14, 1940," for which I cannot find sources. Philcha (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think these statements are jut not true. Probably Capablanca did have some possibilities (and maybe even enough funds) in 1928-1929, but not after the Great Depression. Now Philcha has removed this dubious statement from the article, so this is done. SyG (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Refs for Capa rematch issue. I found good sources for how it started, but nothing for later developments apart from the general bitterness described by Fine (and others).
I have reshaped the paragraph accordingly. SyG (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Ref for "His loss to Latvian master Hermanis Matisons at Prague in 1931 was his first loss in a serious chess event since winning the world championship."
This is stated in Bill Wall's biography. I have added the reference. SyG (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Refs for any influence of A on how Kasparov changed his style during his 1984 Karpov match - I've seen it described as "alekhinisation" but can't find anything now.
This part of the article has been deleted. However, I have added a paragraph about the general influence of Alekhine on Kasparov, backed by Kasparov's citations. SyG (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Philcha (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  •  Done Ref for world record blindfold simul Chicago 1933. Fine's Great Chess Games confirms all except score.
Done by SyG
  •  Done Refs for endgame studies, especially the one diagrammed.
  •  Done Ref(s) for Chess Olympiads. | ALEXANDER ALEKHINE (1892-1946) by Bill Wall does not cover all the ground. Philcha (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Ref for lost "only seven out of 238 games in tournament play" during 1st reign
This has been removed from the text. SyG (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Should we just give the tournament highlights, notably the runaway wins at San Remo & Bled and (sign of decline?) 2= at Hastings 1933/34? This is what we did for pre-1927 chess career, leaving the details to the tables. (See earlier Talk post "Present tournament results as tables?"). This was on my to-do list, but the GA review caught me by surprise.
Catching someone by surprise thanks to a "GA-review" is a first time for me, I usually just hide behind a door ;-) More seriously, I think you are right that overloading the text with tons of results just makes it farer from "brilliant prose". I will change the paragraph accordingly. SyG (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I will re-insert San Remo & Bled, as these are A's most famous wins. Philcha (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The new paragraph is fine for me, so let's call this DONE. SyG (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Refs for "Alekhine was gradually rehabilitated by the Soviet chess elite, following his death in 1946." I suspect Kotov's 1975 book on A. and Kotov and Yudovich's Soviet School .. would cover this but don't have them (might get lucky w Google Books).
Done. Philcha (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Ref for "enhancement" of game at Sabadell 1945 (might be easy, clues in current text). Mysteries at Sabadell looks promising.
Done. Philcha (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done "World Chess Champion, second reign (1937-46)" includes some stuff about A.'s "Nazi" writings, which should be merged into "Nazi controversy". The article's structure has problems from this point onwards: the Nazi controversy led to A. being ostracised by almost all top-class players and officials; but at the time of his death A. was negotiating a title match with Botvinnik. There are no really clean dividing lines. I'm inclined to keep "Nazi controversy" separate becuase of its level of detail but merge "Death" into "World Chess Champion, second reign (1937-46)". A's life was pretty turbulent, so it's hard to separate bio from strictly chess issues (I found the same with Wilhelm Steinitz's not quite so turbulent life). I'm also inclined to make "Nazi controversy" a sub-section of"Assessment". Comments please!
Done. Philcha (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done A's Olympiad performances are currently detailed in "1st reign", which IMO is unsatisfactory for 2 reasons: Beunos Aires 1939 was in his 2nd reign; the whole para is too bulky for 4 events, considering how we've condensed his tournament results. I suggest making a table for the Olympiads, moving the text for Beunos Aires 1939 to "2nd reign" and condensing the text for the ones that belong in "1st reign".
Done. Philcha (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review 2

Is everything above completed? The seven days are going to be up soon, but since so much great progress is being made, I'm willing to let everything play out. Let me know when you all are absolutely finished with everything you wanted to fix, and I'll look over the article again. Nikki311 03:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, the two remaining issues above are:
  • The article could use a really good copyedit (comma problems).
  • References for 1939 negotiations for Capablanca - Alekhine title match.
Please tell me if there are others I have missed. SyG (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a bot for accessdates? That's a cite web param that I don't normally use because (a) I can't remember which date format it likes; (b) more importantly, I don't see what use it is, it's certainly no guard against linkrot.
Otherwise SyG is right. I've just removed the 1939 negotiations for Capablanca - Alekhine title match as neither of us could find refs and it sounds impropbable - Capa's health was deteriorating (died 1942), Kere's challenge was public, I've never previously heard of an agreement to play in 1940.
Re the copyedit, (Nikki, you said you would handle that. Thanks for the offer, which I gratefully accept as it will avoid silly guessing games. I think it would be best to let SyG and me look over the results before the actual review proceeds. While I don't doubt your skills as a copy editor, you said you know next to nothing about chess, and that creates a risk that a copyedit will make subtle but misleadig changes in the meaing of a few phrases.
I'll take this opportunity to thank SyG for resolving most of the items on the "outstanding" list - excellent work! Philcha (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will ask Nikki311 to have her final look on the article and decide the dreaded pass/fail verdict. SyG (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I got your message. The article has been changed quite a bit by a user not involved in this GAN, so look over those changes first to make sure everything is still alright. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is really only suppose to be four paragraphs max, but you can solve that problem by just combining a few of the shorter paragraphs. I've got this page bookmarked, so just let me know when you've checked the recent changes, and I'll be back to do the copy edit. Nikki311 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have scrutinised the recent edits made by Mibelz and I found nothing bad (all of them are suitably referenced and go rather fine in the flow of the article).
I have also reorganised the Lead so that it goes into exactly four paragraphs. These paragraphs are organised as follow:
  1. Alekhine's life until the world title (included)
  2. Alekhine's life between the world title and the WW2 (excluded)
  3. Alekhine's life during the WW2 until his death, including the Nazi controversy
  4. Assessment of Alekhine influence on chess
Please note that I voluntarily removed any reference to the "Accusations of improving games" issue in the Lead, as I consider (subjectively, of course) this issue as a very minor one while the Lead should only talk about the major points (in my understanding). SyG (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The policy about leads has a problem. Yes, wp:lead says "up to 4 paragraphs." But every time I've seen it discussed, it has been that said any distinct topic that is in the text should appear in the lead, which I think is based on "in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." So I'm re-inserting the part about "Accusations of improving games".
Is there a bot for checking and inserting accessdates, to make sure all the latest refs have them? Philcha (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. But, if you do find a link that needs one and you don't want to go through the article history to find out when you used it...you can use the "last date accessed" (or today's date) as the accessdate. Nikki311 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A few more suggestions:

  • Seven of the sentences in World War I and post-revolutionary Russia begin with "In (date)...". I'd change at least a few instances for a more interesting read.
Fair comment - I'll see what I can do. Philcha (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 Done Philcha (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Did he divorce the Russian baroness Sergewin before re-marrying?
I've wondered that about all A.'s re-marriages, but the sources I've seen say nothing about the ends of his marriages and no other editor has clarified this. Perhaps some day we'll get lucky and a reader who has some old book will let us know. Philcha (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The paragraph beginning "In March 1938..." has three sentences in a row starting with "In (date)..."
 Done Philcha (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite a few of the sentences under World War II (1939–1945) also start "In (date)..."
Fair comment - I'll see what I can do. Philcha (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 Done Philcha (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've also done a few copyedits of my own. Most significantly I've tried to make the change of momentum in the 1935 Euwe match clear. Philcha (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • External links don't have to be in the cite web template or have accessdates, so I removed those.

All of the improvements look really good! I've done the copy edit (mostly commas, word choice, and combing a few of the smaller paragraphs). Nikki311 06:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Philcha (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

GA pass

The article is looking really good, and all of my concerns have been addressed. I'm promoting the article to Good Article status. When I took on this review, I wasn't expecting such an article overhaul...both of you should be proud of all the great work you did. My last suggestion (and it's just a suggestion!) is that because the article is so long now (over 92,000 bytes according to the Article History) it might be a good idea to move all the match/tournament results to a new page (maybe List of Alexander Alekhine's competition results or something to that effect) and go for a Featured List. It might be worth a shot. Nikki311 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes! We did it! Thanks very much for your great review that really gave us a lot of opportunities to improve the article! SyG (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree, many thanks, Nikki311!
SyG, you did a great job with the list of outstanding items! Philcha (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the note left on my talk page, I don't think the length would be that big of a problem at FAC. I've never seen an article fail solely because of length. Also, I like the tables. I think reading endless amounts of results in the article text would be too much. The tables remind me of the tables in boxing articles and mixed martial arts articles (see Mike Tyson#Professional boxing record). It would be a good idea to test them in other articles and form a consensus on a universal format, as it makes all the articles look more professional. It might be a good idea to do a Peer Review before going to FAC, just to get some more eyes on the article. I don't think it needs to much more work to pass FAC...but it's probably more than you think. Every article I've taken to FAC, has failed the first time, but the reviewers leave excellent comments that will really improve the article. Nikki311 22:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments about the tables.
"test them in other articles and form a consensus on a universal format" is in progress.
"I don't think it needs to much more work to pass FAC...but it's probably more than you think" reminds me of the puzzle that ends, "What would the other guy advise me to do?" :-) Philcha (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

World championship succession

I've used the template package used for English monarchs, in order to handle the Interregnum of World Chess Champions - as suggested by Quale in March 2008. The same package seems to work well for the more complicated reign of Mikhail Botvinnik. Philcha (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

ChessCafe link @External links is dead. Anyone can find it on pdf or something? Lab-oratory (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Philcha (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref asking

What is ref for this? Some have speculated that he was murdered by a French "Death Squad" or possibly by the NKVD (later KGB). For NKVD. Is it the book in the end of the chapter. I know that French death squad is mentioned in the ChessBase article, but NKVD isnt mentioned. Lab-oratory (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have removed this speculation from the article. SyG (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A Game

abcdefgh
8
b8 black king
c8 black rook
d8 black bishop
a7 black pawn
b7 white pawn
c7 black rook
d7 white pawn
a6 white pawn
f6 black pawn
d5 white pawn
h4 black pawn
b3 white rook
g3 black queen
h3 white pawn
c2 white rook
g2 white pawn
g1 white bishop
h1 white king
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Alekhine – Hofmeister, Moscow 1917

Anyone seen a game with this ending? I couldn't find it on ChessGames. I don't know the opening, but i do know that Alekhine gave Hofmeister odds. Lab-oratory (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you do not mind, I have changed the diagram by assuming the rook in h1 was in reality a King. Otherwise White has a big advantage as he cannot be checkmated ;-) SyG (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, maybe you will find what you want in this link. SyG (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. I already have the ending from c5!. Im just looking for the whole game, if it even exists anywhere. Lab-oratory (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MaxEuwe.jpg

The image Image:MaxEuwe.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Philcha has now added the required explanation to the image. SyG (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead is out of balance

I know this has been discussed above in #GA review 2, but it is clear to me that the lead is out of balance. Not counting the summary first paragraph, there is one short paragraph on his career to 1927, then two long paragraphs on his career after 1927. The third and fourth paragraphs have much too much detail for a lead; and I'll have a go at trimming them soon. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And I've just noticed it omits the point that by dying as reigning champion he unwittingly launched the FIDE system!
The problem is that before 1927 A's life was merely turbulent but after 1927 the controversies piled up. -- Philcha (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Peter Ballard, as the Lead can be surprinsingly controversial sometimes, if the changes you are considering are heavy I would suggest that perhaps you may propose the new formulation on the Talk page before implementing it in the article. SyG (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hidden solutions in diagrams

I'm reverting this edit. It's been agreed in previous Chess article discussions that readers may enjoy trying to solve chess diagrams (What happened next?" is a well-establised training exercise), and therefore hiding continuations is sometimes appropriate. --Philcha (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Links? It's not just a question of concealing information from readers, although there are wide WP:SPOILER issues there. It is also a significant accessibility issue: readers using some screen-readers simply won't be able to access that content. It also looks very bad in browsers without JavaScript, assuming that they can even access the content at all. See MOS:SCROLL. It's not a question of "people might want to work it out"; there are wiki-wide policy issues here. Happy‑melon 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Philcha that there is ample justification for the hide/show function here. If nothing else, it reduces the clutter for readers who don't want to get involved with that level of detail and keeps the article looking 'tidy'. There are no basic principles breached as far as I can see—it's not censorship, there's no spoiler warning and it doesn't hide text in the main prose or references. So, as far as I can see, it very much remains within the spirit of those policies raised by User:Happy-melon. Brittle heaven (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The grounds Happy‑melon offered in his edit summaries of his changes to several chess articles were "content should not be hidden, WP:NOTCENSORED, breaks screen readers, etc." Of these grounds:
  • WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant.
  • If screen-readers cannot cope with standard CSS and JS, they should be upgraded by their suppliers.
  • These are diagrams, i.e. essentially visual. I know there are blind chess enthusiasts, but I have no idea how they cope with diagrams.
  • The non-accessibility issues raised in MOS:SCROLL should be dealt with by @media print blocks in WP's standard CSS.
  • The "no-JS" issue is also technically trivial to solve if one has control of the (X)HTML, CSS and JS. --Philcha (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
In addition to to changing specific articles, he also tried to disable Template:HiddenMultiLine. I find his behaviour dictatorial. --Philcha (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
PS I have reverted your other attmpts to impose your ideas unilaterally, including the disable Template:HiddenMultiLine. --Philcha (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
My actions would be dictatorial if I were to now reimplement my changes or, worse still, use the fact that I have rollback and you do not to enforce my edits on the articles. Such actions would be highly inappropriate, and would quite rightly get me blocked. The edits I have made so far conform to the BRD cycle; we are now at the "discuss" stage. If you find people being bold to be "dictatorial" then there may be an issue there :D. In response to your comments, I do not agree. The principles of NOTCENSORED and SPOILER are not irrelevant; the principle of hiding information because some readers may not wish to see it is exactly the same as hiding images of Muhammad or warning before telling the end of a plot. I agree that it is an extremely weak variant, and I would not have taken action if there weren't other factors. Saying that people should upgrade their browsers is simply not an acceptable way of writing an encyclopedia that is intended to be available to the widest possible audience. If you look at the source of a page including a chess diagram, you will see that it is actually not a single image but an HTML table containing many such images, and that each image has an informative alt title: the template has been very carefully designed to be accessible to people who are blind or have similar handicaps. Screen readers will pan across the rows of the table reading out the alt texts, allowing the user to construct a mental picture of the board. Having gone to such trouble to improve accessibility, having the screen reader skip over the caption because it is hidden content rather defeats the object of the exercise. Your reactions are largely correct - in an ideal world, such solutions would be employed and they would be effective, but the fact is that we live in the real world where such things have not been done and are not effective. And so consequently we have a section of the manual of style which explicitly prescribes that methods to toggle text betwen 'hide' and 'show' "should never be used" in the article body. Happy‑melon 20:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I did not actually say "people should upgrade their browsers", but I guess you're referring to "If screen-readers cannot cope with standard CSS and JS, they should be upgraded by their suppliers." There are at least two possibilities here: (a) no screen readers offer a way of seeing hidden content (in this case I guess CSS display:none; (b) some do and some do not. Re (b), that's a case of using the wrong product, possibly an out-of-date one. I do not see that that should restrict how Wikipedia's content is presented - I doubt if Wikipedia pays much attention these days to compatibility with the unlamented Netscape 4. Is (a) is the case?
By "my reactions" that are "largely correct" do you mean my comment that technically it's easy to implement properly? If so, how do we get it implemented properly?
Re "the fact is that we live in the real world", the same applies to accessibility. There are a few situations where there is an actual conflict of interest between "normal" and disabled users, and this appears to be one. However the conflict can be resolved by the simple changes I outlined.
Re the BRD cycle, if you had simply changed the diagrams in one article and added an explanation on its Talk page, I wold have agreed. However you made similar changes to several articles, and disabled the template used by the hidden solutions to the puzzles. To me that loks like an attempt to impose your view unilaterally. --Philcha (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed not, my apologies; I have corrected my earlier statement to remove the implied quote. The point still stands that it is unacceptable to declare that the problem is not 'our' problem. Internet Explorer is one of the least reliable and worst standards-compliant pieces of software ever released, and yet we maintain an entire file of javascript fixes to attempt to remedy its more outrageous shortcomings. We do not 'declare' that users should instead change to a different browser or even upgrade their existing one (we still support such fixes for IE5, which is now coming up on its tenth birthday, even though its userbase is probably less than some screen readers). We have only just been painfully dragged away from supporting 640x480 screen resolution, even though that is decades obsolete. I am not fully familiar with the issues involved or how assistive technology copes with them, but the manual of style is absolutely clear: these methods should not be used for article content. If you object to that, as you clearly do, then you have an issue with the MoS, not with me. I will link this discussion from WT:MOS and WT:ACCESS to get some input from people more familiar with the details.
Incidentally, the process you describe is the exact antithesis of the BRD cycle, but I have no interest in continuing that thread any further. Happy‑melon 21:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The link to WT:MOS and WT:ACCESS will be useful, thank you. However I would hope WP:MOS is not used to restrict WP's opportunities to provide an enjoyable experience for readers, and you seem to agree that there is a simpe CSS+JS solution for WP:ACCESS aspects.
Re "Internet Explorer is one of the least reliable and worst standards-compliant pieces of software ever ... such fixes for IE5 ...", you obviously never had the "pleasure" of dealing with Netscape 4, which was a crock and was deservedly crushed by IE 4 and 5. The fixes I've referred to will work in IE 5 up (the much more complex trickery at Fixing position:fixed for Windows Internet Explorer works fine in IE 5).
I think hidden continuations are OK for problems and studies, but I don't like them for other uses, e.g. game continuations. My two cents. Bubba73 (talk), 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. “WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant.”—But WP:NOTGUIDE is. “Readers may enjoy trying to solve chess diagrams (What happened next?" is a well-establised training exercise)”—We are an encyclopedia, not a quiz book or a training manual. No peek-a-boos, please.
  2. “If screen-readers cannot cope with standard CSS and JS, they should be upgraded by their suppliers.”—what do you mean “should?” Upgrades to screen readers or braille displays may cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, which some may not be able to afford. Others may not have any control over a public or shared computer. We can't tell people what browser we want them to use.
  3. “These are diagrams, i.e. essentially visual. I know there are blind chess enthusiasts, but I have no idea how they cope with diagrams.”—Neither should we tell the disabled what they should look at, or assume that we know about their disability. E.g., Joe Clark: “(At a camp for blind kids where I taught, the kids who insisted on setting fonts and colours were totally blind!) But fundamentally, it really isn’t up to you to decide in advance what kinds of films blind people should have access to. ‘We really think you’d be happier not watching this movie’ is the height of snobbery.”
  4. “The non-accessibility issues raised in MOS:SCROLL should be dealt with by @media print blocks in WP's standard CSS.”—“should be?” If it doesn't print right, then it is an accessibility problem for people with printers. Why not fix it first instead of inconveniencing them?
  5. “The "no-JS" issue is also technically trivial to solve if one has control of the (X)HTML, CSS and JS.”—If there are issues, let's solve them before subjecting possibly thousands of readers to them. —Michael Z. 2009-01-06 23:41 z
Your point #1 about NOTGUIDE is good, but not censored is not. This isn't censoring. Secondly, your #4 about printing is good. If I was printing an article I would expect to automatically get the full captions, and you don't. Bubba73 (talk), 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Re WP:NOTGUIDE, one of the items in Alexander Alekhine is an end-game study, which is a kind of puzzle. It would not have been printed with the solution visible immediately below.
Re "Neither should we tell the disabled what they should look at ...", I wasn't - " I have no idea how they cope with diagrams" mean twhat the words sais, i.e. I didn't know. Before Michael Z. responded, Happy‑melon had already clarified that point (21:27, 6 January 2009)
Re "We can't tell people what browser we want them to use," I wasn't, but it is generally assumed that readers use up-to-date versions that implement current standards reasonably well. Since there are enough free browsers that do so, all with download sizes of around 5MB, that is a reasonable assumption.
Re "Upgrades to screen readers or braille displays may cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, which some may not be able to afford", are you talking about hardware or software? AFAIK any relevant restrictions are in the software, and failure to implement web standards would be a defect in the software which the supplier should fix. In fact it appears that JAWS screenreader for Windows v 7.1 and up can handle show / hide adequately (and the current version is 9.0), i.e. it seems JAWS has had the required capabilities for nearly 2 years.
Re "Why not fix it first instead of inconveniencing them?" (both printing and JS-off use), would Michael Z. and Happy‑melon support a request for such a fix and point out that there are cases where it will improve readers' enjoyment of articles? --
Yeah, NOTGUIDE: this is an encyclopedia, not a place to play puzzles.
“It is generally assumed that readers use up-to-date versions that implement current standards reasonably well” is absolutely and demonstrably false. MSIE 6 is over seven years old, and it is free—and yet we have to jump through hoops to make absolutely every single thing in this encyclopedia work in this crappiest of browsers (just try to delete {{IPA}} and {{Unicode}} if you disagree). So please don't imply that the disabled don't deserve to use the encyclopedia unless they pay hundreds of bucks to upgrade their 2-year old screen reader. Assistive technology includes both expensive hardware and expensive software, and we don't have to, and indeed never could understand the details of all the systems available. We just have to follow basic accessibility guidelines, like making things degrade gracefully if CSS or JavaScript is not available. —Michael Z. 2009-01-07 06:44 z
Re "MSIE 6 ... crappiest of browsers", obviously you never worked with Netscape Navigator, especially version 4. I would agree since about 2002, when NN's market share dropped below 2%, that IE has been the weakest link. However in this particular case we're talking about how to switch between display:none and display:block, which IE 4 was able to handle satisfactorily in 1997.
Re "this is an encyclopedia, not a place to play puzzles", I think readers will retain information better if they find articles interesting. Chess problems, end-game studies and "what happened next" are long-established features of chess articles and books.
Is your approach to accessibility "let's forbid things" or is it "let's make things work accessibly"? --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
All I have to add to this discussion is that when I was running JAWS 5.1 (from 2003), I had no problems with show/hide links, and I'm sure that earlier versions (probably as early as 2000 or 2001) would handle the show/hide code correctly. But it would be annoying for a screen reader user to find and click on the show links that they wanted to read. Graham87 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Traffic statistics

Here is the monthly volume of view counts for this article including the redirects, i.e. "Alexander Alekhine" + "Alekhine" + "Alexandre Alekhine":

  • December 2007: 3132 = 2739+361+32
  • January 2008: 8249 = 7381+786+82
  • February 2008: 5175 = 4428+609+138
  • March 2008: 4875 = 4379+447+49
  • April 2008: 4584 = 3955+572+57
  • May 2008: 5688 = 5011+617+60

France

When did he move to France? I can't find it in the article and it needs to be there. Bubba73 (talk), 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that he came in Paris in 1921. SyG (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Match With Capablanca

This match was the longest, as noted, for the world title, until the first Karpov-Kasparov bout in 1984-85, as the Labourdonnais-McDonnell tilt preceded any official world championship, which only came to exist in the time of Steinitz.

  • This is true. Additionally, I don't think anyone considers Labourdonnais v. McDonnell to be a single match, contrary to the claim made in an edit summary. Our articles say it was a series of six matches. 165.189.101.177 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

First marriage

Corrected info about the fist marriage. Shaburov claims the wife's real name comes from some archives and adds that the wrong name is cited in many sources including the old Muller & Pavelczak work. If anything else needs to be verified via Russian sources, feel free to ask. Currently I'm finishing Alekhine's bio in ruwiki. --Blacklake (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Front page of Russian Wiki

ru:Алехин, Александр Александрович is currently front page of the Russian Wiki. SunCreator (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Death is end of championship? Alexander Alekhine world champion until 1948!!!

This is the misconception, assuming i win championship today, next one is in whenever, i get sick, cant play, i keep the title, but assuming i die, then in a way I abdicated? That reminds me of Alekine &

1. Vera Menchik - 1927 - 1950 first woman champ,
She was born in Moscow of Czechoslavakian-British extraction, Vera Menchik was easily

the strongest female player of her time, having at one time or other beaten most of the strongest players in the world (the defeated became members of the "Vera Menchik Club"). In 1927 she won the first Women's World Championship tournament with a score of 10.5 out of 11. She defended her title with ease in Hamburg 1930, Prague 1931, Folkestone 1933, Warsaw 1935, Stockholm 1937 and Buenos Aires 1939. She died as an undefeated champion during Nazi bomb raids over London, during WW2. WITH DEATH CHAMPIONSHIP DIDNT END! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMasta (talk • contribs) 20:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1927 match - para with no citations

This para has no citations and therefore fails to comply with verification:

The 1927 title match was very hard fought throughout its course, which lasted for nearly two and a half months. Alekhine won the first match game as Black in a French Defence, when Capablanca played somewhat passively in the middlegame; this was Alekhine's first-ever win over Capablanca in a serious game, after 13 years of trying. Capablanca evened the score in game three, and then won game seven, both with the White pieces, to take the lead. Alekhine scored consecutive wins when he forced resignation in games 11 and 12, to recapture the lead. Even as late as game 31, Alekhine led only by four wins to three with 24 draws, and it appeared the match could last for several more weeks. But the challenger won games 32 and 34, while drawing the 33rd game, to claim the title. Capablanca did not win a game with the Black pieces, while Alekhine won three times as second player. Throughout the title fight, Alekhine played more circumspectly, solidly, and quietly than he had in previous encounters with Capablanca, while avoiding unnecessary or unsound tactical adventures, which had sometimes led to his defeat in earlier games. Alekhine's strategy seemed to be one of waiting for the Cuban World Champion to tire and weaken, which eventually did happen at the conclusion. So far as opening preferences were concerned, the players favoured various forms of the Queen's Gambit in most games, avoiding the sharper and less-analyzed Hypermodern openings. Throughout his top-class career, Capablanca had never been challenged or pressed repeatedly in so many hard games, in the manner which Alekhine was able to achieve.

All statements in the para must be supported by citations, or removed. The para also should be more concise, and still to the facts without any editioralising. --Philcha (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Son

It is interesting to see in this article the photo of his son who was still living in 2003. There is no mention of which of Alekhine's 4 wives is the mother -- is this and/or other information available about him?--Jrm2007 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A further thought: Would there be any surviving offspring of an earlier world champion? I realize that Wikipedia does not emphasize children of notable people who are themselves not notable, but I think this is interesting. In theory (but I don't think in practice) Capablanca could have surviving children, Lasker also; until fairly recently, even Steinitz could have had survivors and perhaps he has grandchildren alive now.--Jrm2007 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Birthday

I added his birthday and "deathday" next to his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsaces (talk • contribs) 12:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Alcoholism - using unreliable sources

Kmoch is one of many sources that state that Alekhine had difficulties with alcohol. Kmoch knew Alekhine personally, and specifically calls him an alcoholic in the cited source. The onus is on those who want this left out of the biography to demonstrate why this source (and others that we can and should provide) are not reliable. Quale (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The only source cited so far regarding alcoholism is some pdf file, available from some website. There is no evidence that these alcoholism allegations or the whole content of that file actually belong to Kmoch.

More importantly, alcoholism is a medical condition and can only be diagnosed by a qualified doctor. Kmoch does not fall into this category, even if he made those claims.

Finally, there are clear Wikipedia requirements on what can or cannot be considered a reliable source with regards to medical claims. Please see the article "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources" and, in particular, its "medical claims" section. The aforementioned pdf file does not satisfy these requirements.

To summarise - if Mr X. starts distrubuting over the Internet a pdf file, in which Mr Y. makes allegations that Mr Z. is an alcoholic, this pdf file does not qualify as a reliable source. On the other hand - if Mr X. manages to procure a statement from Mr Z's doctor or a copy of Mr Z's medical records, then that source would be considered a reliable source for the purpose of making medical claims.

Cap27 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Alekhine has been dead for a long time, WP:BLP doesn't apply, but I agree that this sort of biographical claim needs to be well sourced. We can and should improve the sourcing. I don't agree that a medical diagnosis is always required to use the word "alcoholic" in a biography, particularly when it is made clear who is making the claim and they have sound basis for it. Even so, if you would like the a specific change such as replacing the word "alcoholic" with something like "heavy drinking", that's worth discussing.
On the other hand, if you think Hans Kmoch is "Mr X", then there is no point in discussion. Kmoch was a respected chess player and journalist. He was very close to Alekhine, having assisted him during three matches for the world championship including the first match with Euwe. (You would know this if you had followed the link to Hans Kmoch. You would also know that he died before the Internet era, so the PDF in question is being distributed by others posthumously.) Kmoch is not the only one to write that Alekhine was a heavy drinker, nor is the only one to either speculate or simply claim outright that heavy drinking adversely affected Alekhine's play. I've trimmed these for space and because of copyright, but all are in the context of the 1935 World Championship match with Euwe:
  • "... along about 1933, something happened. He began to drink more and more. ... Stories of his drinking were freely circulated; in one simultaneous exhibition he began to urinate on the floor, and the exhibition was canceled." Reuben Fine, The World's Great Chess Games, p. 150.
  • "Always a hard drinker, he drank more and more heavily and this was the cause of his losing the title to Euwe." Harry Golombek, Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, p. 10.
  • "There had been much speculation during the match that Alekhine was not physically fit to play and this was in fact true, as he was drinking very heavily at this time, and even played some games while he was intoxicated." Pablo Morán, World Chess Championship: Steinitz to Alekhine, p. 46.
  • "The usual explanation for Alekhine's remarkable volte-face is that he was falling-down drunk most of the time, and certainly his drinking problem was more apparent during the match than ever before. But both players held that overconfidence, rather than drink, was primarily responsible. After all, Alekhine had been drinking heavily for years before, and it never seemed to bother him much." Al Horowitz, The World Chess Championship: A History", p. 105.
  • "Other factors affecting the outcome of the match were Alekhine's lack of serious preparation and his penchant for drinking alcoholic beverages during important contests. ... His increasing problem with alcohol was noted by many. Fine wrote that during the Warsaw team tournament (Olympiad) in 1935, played shortly before the match with Euwe, Alekhine, '... went through most of his games in a state of mild inebriation'". Calvin Olson, The Chess Kings, Volume 1, p. 129.
Quale (talk) 8 June 2011 22:56 (UTC)

The quoted sources do not mention alcoholism. Obviosly these authors are more careful with their words, possibly because these are professionally edited, reviewed and properly published books, unlike some pdf file of questionable authenticity. BTW, the author of the previous unsigned comment, starting with "Since Alekhine has been dead..." is encouraged to sign his comments. This helps to keep track of who said what.

Cap27 (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The source used in the article is Kmoch, and he mentions alcoholism. There are other possible reasons than supposed lack of editing or review for Kmoch to express himself more bluntly than the other authors. Kmoch is from an unpublished manuscript, and since both Kmoch and Alekhine were dead it might have been easier to offer an unvarnished opinion. Instead of repeatedly removing cited content, try to suggest here on the talk page replacement text that you would find acceptable and we can discuss it. I have participated at Wikipedia for about 5 years and I have never once reported anyone to WP:AN3 for edit warring, but your behavior has brought me to the verge of doing for for the first time. This makes me sad. (Thanks for reminding me to sign my earlier comment; that was an oversight.) Quale (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That is the point - a lot of claims in this article are based on this unpublished manuscript of questionable authenticity and neutrality, which make Kmoch's pdf unsuitable for citing. Please choose your sources carefully. Encyclopedia readers need a balanced neutral poiht of view rather a tabloid style "unvarnished opinion" gossip. As explained many times earlier, alcoholism is a medical condition and such a claim must come from a medically reputable source. Please do not mention 'alcoholism' in this article until you provide a reputable source. Please re-read and make an effort to understand my earlier comments.

Cap27 (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a bit from Fine's book, a source from a reliable publisher, so you can't ignore or suppress it. As you seem to be a fan of Alekhine, I suggest you stop your war, otherwise: (a) other reliable sources can be added about Alekhine's acohohol problem, making this point more visible in the article; (b) you will be reported to WP:AN3 for edit warring, and the most likely result is that you could be blocked. --Philcha (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine's book is an improvement, we are making progress. This source should be properly detailed though, e.g. Chernev, I. (1995). "Alekhine". Twelve Great Chess Players and Their Best Games. Dover Publications. pp. 163–164. ISBN 9780486286747. Retrieved 2009-08-14. Also the term 'alcoholism' should not be used unless properly supported (see comments above). Cap27 (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Now no "alcoholism" but more "alcohol", apparently starting by Bled 1931. ChessCafe.com is a reliable source which publishes articles about game and opening analisys (by masters and sometimes GMs), the history of chess, etc. So Kmoch's article isn't "some pdf file of questionable authenticity". --Philcha (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • And I've reinstated "Salo Flohr, who also assisted Euwe, thought overconfidence caused more problems than alcohol for Alekhine in this match, ..." - again, from a reliable source. --Philcha (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggest you drop this business, as continuing will damage Alekhine's reputation further. I like Alekhine's games, see the "Notable chess games" section (especially Richard Reti vs Alexander Alekhine, Baden Baden 1925, a 12-move combination), and I like Chernev's "The openings consist of Alekhine's games, with a few variations" (a slight exaggeration, of course). --Philcha (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, with your kind efforts now an unsuspecting reader visiting Alekhine's page and hoping to learn more about this outstanding chess player, will learn more about drinking than chess. Thank you for at least not placing your contribution in the very first paragraph. I suggest that you remove your excessive rubbing of the drinking issue from the article. Balance and neutrality should be the main criteria when selecting content. Chesscafe.com is an acceptable source for chess-related content, but not for making medical claims such as 'alcoholism'. Finally - players win or loose because they play well or badly. The rest is just speculations unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. Trying to explain a win or a loss by what great players drink or eat has no value. Cap27 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's call WP:NPOV, please read that policy. The article now does not use "alcoholism", and the comments by Fine, Kmoch and Flohr are attributed. All great players have limitations as well as strengths, and Alekhine drank excessively. --Philcha (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Confusing statement

"To protect his wife, Grace Alekhine, an American Jew, and her French assets (a castle at Saint Aubin-le-Cauf, near Dieppe, which the Nazis looted)..."

If it was looted by the Nazis, how did Alekhine's actions of cooperation "protect" it? 67.180.44.133 (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  • At least the Nazis didn't destroy or takeover the castle. --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
As a point of interest, it appears that the chateau still exists and is now a bed and breakfast: http://e-planete.com/sites/lachatellenie/index.htm#. Appropriately, the rooms names have a chess theme, knight, rook, queen, king, and the "Chambre Alekhine". Quale (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Grace Freeman-Wishar, Alekhine's spouse (since 1934), was an American naturalized British. Her two first weddings in America were celebrated according to a Protestant rite. Is there any source backing she could have Jewish origins ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dteyssou (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Olympic Medals

From 1930 to 1935, Alekhine played first board for France at four Chess Olympiads, winning [...] gold medals for board one at Prague in 1931 and Folkestone in 1933, and the silver medal for board one at Warsaw in 1935.

Is that true? Were individual medals donated before WW II? I have never seen contemporary sources confirming that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.138.43.139 (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. It's referenced in the article and I think I can also find it in the FIDE book. Quale (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it´s not true. The references do not mention any "gold medals" oder "silver medals" for best board results. It´s a misinterpretation. No serious Alekhine bio mentions these alleged medals. Where are they now? Disappeared into thin air? They are just fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.138.45.133 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Aside from Olimpbase, the best source I have for the Olympiads through 1968 is Chess Olympiads, 1927–1968 by Árpád Földeák (1979 Dover edition, reprinted from a 1969 English translation of the Hungarian original). Concerning Hamburg 1930, it says on page 47 "Rubinstein, Havasi, and Flohr won the prizes for the best individual scores." Page 141, concerning Stockholm 1937, says "The prizes for the best score on each board went to Flohr, Fine, Kashdan, Danielsson, and Horowitz, while A. Steiner was awarded the prize for the highest individual score overall." That suggests to me that individual prizes were awarded at early Olympiads. On the other hand, while the book notes the top individual score on first board for Alekhine at Folkstone 1933, it doesn't say that he was awarded a prize. Unfortunately that isn't conclusive one way or the other. Maybe some other chess editor knows more about this. Quale (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

English version of the name

Can anyone explain why the English spelling of his name has an "e" at the end? It doesn't match the Russian spelling, and it gives no positive phoenetic hints either, in fact it actually makes English speakers pronounce it horribly wrong, by sounding it out as "a-leh-eye-n" instead of the correct pronounciation "a-leh-in"

I am not contesting the veracity of the English version, I know it is everywhere, I am just curious why it is so uselessly wrong.

72.245.213.213 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Russian pronunciation indicated in the article is wrong too. It's pronounced Al-YOKH-in.--108.36.159.94 (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Alekhine himself pronounced it Alyekhin, not Alyokhin. The Russian "e" letter often causes confusion, if it's written as "ë" then it's definitely pronounced "yo", but sometimes the two dots are omitted in which case it could be either "ye" or "yo". This is how the spelling "Gorbachev" rather than "Gorbachyov" became established in English. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I've always assumed it was the French romanisation, which was imported into the anglosphere. That explains why we had Feodor Chaliapine (nowadays it's usually Chaliapin) rather than Shalyapin, Léonide Massine rather than Leonid Myasin, and others. Without the -e, the French would be tempted to incorrectly nasalise the -in ending. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The English version is Alexander Alekhin; Alexandre Alekhine is the French spelling. --Chvsanchez (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

proposal about alekhine-capablanca rematch controversy

There is a widely debated topic on chess history, it is not clear whether it is based on facts or rumours/speculations. the topic is: "Alekhine-Capablanca world championship rematch." Some believe Alekhine avoided Capablanca and some believe contrary, ALekhine gave him a chance but Capa did not use it. can wikipedia enlighten all of us on this matter? p.s: I am not good at wikipedia, I cant add references and e.t.c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir artur (talk • contribs) 15:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Alexander Alekhine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Alekhine/Archive_1&oldid=1145853520"