Major General James G. Blunt

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Grandmaster, again

I see that there has already been at least one lengthy argument about this in this talk page (in 2007).

The claim that Polgar was "the first woman to earn the Grandmaster title following the same qualification criteria as men" is unsourced and, as far as I know, false. To make a claim that, in effect, questions the validity of the norms earned by Gaprindashvili and Chiburdanidze in Wikipedia, one must have a Reliable Source (see WP:RS for an introduction to this topic).

The story of Gaprindashvili's GM title is told in the article about her: Nona Gaprindashvili. As far as I know, she satisfied the 25-game norm requirements in 24 games. Benko's calling this a "blemish" was carelessly thought out. If a player clinches a tournament victory with one round to spare, do we say that there is a "blemish" on his tournament victory?

Nowadays one must attain a 2500 rating to get a GM title, but that requirement was not in place when Gaprindashvili earned her title. This is, of course, a difference between how Polgar earned her title and how Gaprindashvili earned hers. If you think that's worth mentioning in the article, you could try it, but (as a chess fan and Wiki reader) I would not be impressed by invidious comparisons like that.

Chiburdanidze, I assume, likewise earned her title by norms. The only norm I am sure of was from her 1st place at New Delhi 1984, but if you look at the Georgian-language Wikipedia article about her, you will see quite a few tournament prizes from the early 1980's, of which I would have to guess that at least two were good for GM norms. I do not know if the 2500 rating requirement was in force at the time, or (if it was) whether she had satisfied it.

If you look at other Wikipedia articles about famous chess players, you will not see dubious and generally invidious comparisons with their rivals. The general practice is to simply list the player's achievements in a straightforward way, without excessive embellishment. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the update regarding medals and the issue of awarded vs earned GM title is a result of the fact checking done by the US Chess Hall of Fame Committee chaired by John Donaldson prior to her selection for the Hall of Fame in March 2019. The exact text of her plaque, authored by the committee, is as follows:

Born in Budapest, Hungary, Susan Polgar immigrated to the United States in 1994. The top-ranked woman in the world at 15, in 1991, she became the first to earn the grandmaster title by norms and rating. Polgar won the Women's World Rapid and Blitz Championships in 1992. Her victory in the 1996 Women's World Championship also made her the first triple crown winner. Polgar won 12 Olympiad medals (five gold, four silver, three bronze) and led the U.S. to second place in 2004. She was undefeated in 56 games played on Board One. Polgar has coached men's college division I teams at Texas Tech University (2011-2012) and Webster University (2012-2018) to a record seven consecutive national championships. Frank Niro (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Frank Niro —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The committee's formulation is, "... the first to earn the grandmaster title by norms and rating." I assume that means that the 2500 rating criterion wasn't in effect at the time that Chiburdanidze earned her title.
Anyway, I could not object if you either quoted the Committee's wording, or rewrote it in your own words, and used a footnote to cite your source. I am pretty sure that would be considered a Reliable Source by the standards of Wikipedia. The present wording, "... following the same qualification criteria as men", is not satisfactory, because that's not what the Committee is saying.
As I said in my previous comment, I don't think that kind of comparison between former rivals is really what the Wikipedia audience is looking for. But I would defer to your judgment on this one -- you obviously spend more time and energy on this article than I do. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Susan Polgár → Susan Polgar – The current article title uses an odd combination of her Hungarian name and the name she has been using now living in the US. The title should instead use the name she currently uses, "Susan Polgar", without the diacritic, that can be seen on her website. —Aranya (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, until we don't learn what's her official name as a U.S. citizen (maybe the current form).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support. The article was under the title Susan Polgar until it was moved without discussion in December 2018. That was a bad move. The page should be under the spelling that Susan Polgar chooses to use and which is the dominant form used in English writing. As the article notes, Her birth name was Polgár Zsuzsanna so there is no good justification for the current title. Quale (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Her name is simply never spelled this way. Cobblet (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Go full Hungarian with Zsuzsa Polgár (the name I always knew her by) or full American with Susan Polgar, but don't mess with Mr In Between. Let redirects take care of the rest. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Zsuzsa Polgár" is not full Hungarian as Hungarian names use Eastern name order. Quale (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know this and "Easter name order" is not uncommon in Russia and Romania too. But we don't have an article on Bartók Béla do we? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and the point is? "Béla Bartók" is not "full Hungarian" either. But it might be the WP:COMMONNAME in English, which would be a good reason to use it on en.wiki. Quale (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • What you describe is misunderstandable, regarding full Hungarian. Maxbrowne2 considered this that the name is written in a complete Hungarian form regardless of the name order, because it is obvious that in the English WP not eastern name order is used. Thus Béla Bartók is full Hungarian, as anyone else in the entire world, who's name is written in a different order outside Hungary where different name order holds.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]
            • I'm not sure it's obvious that Eastern name order is not used in the English Wikipedia. There aren't many chess bio examples, but see for instance Yin Hao (chess player). Eastern order is not used for Hungarian names in the English wikipedia, but Eastern order is not used for Hungarian names in English outside of en.wiki either. English uses Eastern name order for some Indian and Chinese names. Quale (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's obvious to me, even outside of WP it is evident. Our discussion was mainly about the interpretation of full Hungarian, as MaxBrowne2 considered.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support English-language sources do not use diacritics in her name. Sophia91 (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment depressing to see a few of the bad arguments from the anti-foreign-names war aka HOCKEYNAMES/TENNISNAMES (sic) resurface. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're arguing against WP:COMMONNAME then I am not sympathetic. I expect the en.wiki article to be titled Vienna, not Wien. Expectations at de.wiki would be different, of course. Quale (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination which submits, as key supporting evidence, subject's own English-language website. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bruce leverett (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It should not have been moved to the current title in the first place (the technical move request was made by the same editor requesting the move in this discussion). Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

dubious claim in lead

The lead says, "Polgar is also the first woman in history to break the gender barrier by qualifying for the 1986 "Men's" World Championship.[1]". The cite is the New York Times, which says, "Polgar, 36, who was previously known as Zsuzsa, has won the women's title four times. In 1986, she became the first woman to qualify for the Men's World Championship, and she earned the men's grandmaster title five years later." I am trying to work out what she did in 1986 to qualify for the Men's title. She did not play in the 1987 Interzonals. So what happened... did she qualify via a Zonal but not participate? That seems possible but unlikely, given the strength of Hungarian chess and the fact she was "only" an IM in 1986. Also that NYT times article incorrectly says she was 4 times Womens champion, so maybe it should be taken with a grain of salt... Adpete (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see, from [1]: The unexpected happened. Knowing that I needed to finish in the top 3 to achieve the unthinkable, I paced myself to accomplish just that. I finished tied for 2nd with IM Laszlo Hazai, behind Grandmaster Ivan Farago. I was very happy of what I have accomplished. I had become the first woman ever to quality for the “Men’s World Championship” Zonal tournament. -- So it was qualification for the Zonal, not the Interzonal. That's still impressive, but I think it is a stretch to call playing in a Zonal the same as playing for the Men's World Championship. Sam Sloan (further up on this page) has said that Pia Cramling earlier played in a Zonal; if that is true then the whole claim is wrong anyway, though the story probably still merits inclusion in the body of the article. Adpete (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Weeks has all(?) Zonals here: https://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/zonals/wcc-zonl.htm . They are clippings so they are not searchable, but from a quick scan, I cannot see Cramling in the 1987-90 cycle or earlier. So it seems Polgar is correct and Sloan is wrong: Polgar would have been the first woman to play a Zonal (or at least, the claim is not disproven by the example of Cramling). (EDIT) Unless Sloan means Cramling qualified but did not play. That might be very hard to prove or disprove! Adpete (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was Pia Cramling's brother Dan who won the Swedish championship many years ago and may have qualified for some position in the WC cycle. Sloan may have been confused about that.
In one of the narratives Sloan gives earlier in this talk page, he says that for a short while Polgar was thought to have qualified for the Zonal, but then it was clarified that Hungary only had N places and she lost the Nth place on tiebreak to Hazai. If the story is true, then one would have to say, technically, Polgar never actually qualified. One can easily verify from the usual sources that she tied with Hazai in the Hungarian championship, and that Hazai played in the Zonal and Polgar did not. So, the story might be correct. I would not routinely trust Sloan, but would want to find the usual sources to verify the full story. One might have to look through Hungarian-language periodicals. I have not seen anything about it in my limited English-language sources; I don't have Inside Chess from back then.
I agree that the NYT article is not a satisfactory reference. It is conceivable that the columnist did the necessary research to verify the claim, but it's quite likely that it was just accepted without verification. Also the material from Lubbock Online (and other sources I have found) is autobiographical, so not usable in Wikipedia. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense about Dan Cramling. Pia was born in 1963 so it seems unlikely that she would qualified in 1980/81. Granted that is actually older than Polgar in 1986, but by the (possibly unreliable) details at her Chessmetrics page, Pia wasn't playing any notable events at all until she was 17 in 1980.
I think the autobiographical claim is usable (but only in the body, not in the lead) so long as it is qualified that it is her recollection. The NYT definitely didn't check because it claims she is 4x Womens WCC; so I don't want to use that. Also, even if the story as related by Polgar in Lubbock Online is correct, she did not qualify for the Zonal but lost on tie break. Adpete (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

I missed this when it happened, but Polgar retired from Webster University earlier this year, and she is now the emeritus director of SPICE rather than the current director.[2] 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Triple crown

In my edit summary, I didn’t cavil at the notability of the triple crown; I was complaining about disorganization of the article. Thread section isn’t supposed to be a flat list of everything unusual that Polgar ever did.It is supposed to be a quick summary of the rest of the article. The triple crown is not there, for instance in the “career” section, so it doesn’t qualify for the lead section.

Before you rush off to move your text to the career section, may I remind you that Polgar’s triple crown is not in the same league as Carlsen’s, not by about 300 rating points. If you don’t or can’t acknowledge the difference in your text, readers will regard it as a joke. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add family members

There is no mention of her family members (who are also proficient in chess) 2A02:A420:6A:6823:5860:B197:273C:3DB6 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her sisters are mentioned in the "Early career" section. Her husband is also mentioned in that section. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Susan_Polgar