Jump to content

Talk:List of world records in chess

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

Old talk[edit]

I'm a bit sceptical of this "(as played at the professional level)" - there are really a very small number of truly professional players, and I'm not convinced that, for example, Djordjeic - Kovacevic, Bela Crkva 1984 (given as the shortest tournament game) involves one of them. Tim Krabbé (who I assume is the source of this) says that this was a "serious tournament" but that's not the same thing as "professional". Are we sure that "professional" is correct? --Camembert

I've decided to change "at a professional level" to "in serious tournaments" - probably not perfect wording (I've seen six year olds play, and their parents can take it pretty seriously...), but better. --Camembert

What about an entry for "longest winning streak" in serious tournament games? Didn't Fischer go 17 games at one point without losing or drawing? -Fritzlein 18:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In the same vein, I believe Capablanca was undefeated through tournaments for eight successive years (1916 - 1923 IIRC). thefamouseccles 02:42, 03 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lots more records needed[edit]

Here are categories of records, which in my opinion would greatly enhance this page. I don't have time right now to go research, but will when I get it. In the mean time if anybody's willing to have a crack at it, please, by all means.

  • Winning streaks (tournaments, matches, career, etc.) also differentiate between purely wining (i.e. no draws, only wins) and no losses (i.e only draws and wins). Also differentiate if possible between classical chess, rapid chess, correspondance chess, etc.
  • Variant chess (blindfold, simultaneous). How many boards was the max? records (wins, losses, draws), etc.
  • Game features (number of queens, number of moves, amount of time, etc.)

I agree with you completely- and I believe that even more should be added to that, eg. shortest possible game- fools mate, most common opening played, least sensible opening (a matter of opinion, I know but this is almost universally agreed) 1...f5 in response to 1.e4 and to play 1.f3 to start with then with 2.Kf2.

Also, what about most dangerous accepted opening for White or Black? And the most high-risk (higher win-loss rate than draws)openings? They should be quite interesting.

"Most queens" is needed, but the example given as the most (5?) is thought to be bogus, I think. Bubba73 (talk), 02:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably thinking of the notorious Alekhine-Grigoriev "game", which was really Alekhine's analysis embellishing on the actual game continuation. According to Tim Krabbé's chess records page (external link given in article), there are 6 legitimate tournament games with five queens on the board at once - though he unhelpfully gives only three of them. I would guess that Tresling-Benima, Winschoten 1896 (full score given on pp. 127-28 of Chernev's Wonders and Curiosities of Chess) is probably another legit one. There, the five queens were only on the board for a moment, so it wouldn't have made Krabbé's list (he only lists games where all the queens stayed on for a little while). Krakatoa (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An important record needed here is the strongest performance ever in a tournament, since achieving 6-0 against average GMs may be "easier" than achieving 5-1 against super-GMs. A serious contender in this category would be Magnus Carlsen's performance of 3002 at Nanjing Pearl Spring 2009 (6-4-0), category 21 (average rating 2763). This is probably the only performance ever above 3000 for an entire tournament. FP

Probably right, but I don't know what would be considered a reliable source these days for the best tournament result ever. The Chessmetrics site hasn't been revised for almost six years, apparently. I think Jeff Sonas might have written an article for ChessBase on whether Carlsen's win gave him the best performance rating ever. Bobby Fischer's 6-0 win over Larsen was in a match, not a tournament, but would be a strong contender for best performance rating ever. Krakatoa (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sonas did. According to Sonas, Carlsen's result, while the best ever by a teenager, was "only" tied for the 13th best tournament performance rating in history. The best was Karpov's amazing 11/13 at Linares 1994. Krakatoa (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another important record we might want to consider is latest novelty. Off the top of my head, I'd point to http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1069915 (move 30), but I'm sure there are probably later ones I don't know about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Score[edit]

Under Shortest Game, in the "ridiculous" game between Hubner and Rogoff it should be obvious that after 4...0-0 the move 5 Qxd7 does not give check. Is it the score that is wrong, or the check? Cottonshirt (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most games without a loss[edit]

Chessbase says that Sergei Tiviakov went 110 games without a loss from 28.10.2004 until 28.09.2005.[1] This is the first I've heard of this and I'm a little skeptical. Can anyone with access to a database confirm? Peter Ballard (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard of it either. Tal's record is currently in jeporady, though. Bubba73 (talk), 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not from Wang Yue, who lost last night in the FIDE Grand Prix 2008-2009.[2] As for Tiviakov, it seems he wrote to Chessbase himself! On a Dec 4 item, Chessbase wrote: "Addendum: we have been informed by GM Sergey Tiviakov that from 28.10.2004 until 28.09.2005 he played 110 games (normal FIDE controls, no rapid) and didn't lose any. "Of course, my opponents were not all very strong," he writes, "but they did include Ivanchuk, Aronian, Radjabov, Carlsen, Dreev, etc. So my record can still be compared with that of Wang Yue, for example.""[3] So while I'm sure Tiviakov wouldn't lie about it, I still think a database check would be nice. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kramnik has a streak of 80+ going, according to Susan Polgar's blog about a week ago. Bubba73 (talk), 00:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know he had a streak a few years ago, but must I remind you already of the World Chess Championship 2008???? :) :) Peter Ballard (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that's what they were talking about. My copy of chessbase only has 90 or so games for Tiviakov in that time period. The only loses are two to Ivanchuk on 12-18-04 in the Carlos Torre Wimbleton Wimbledon. They played four games that day, so they must have been rapid or blitz, so I don't know if they were FIDE rated. Bubba73 (talk), 00:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was rated: here. Bubba73 (talk), 00:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was in style of a FIDE knockout (2 regular games, then rapid playoffs). The FIDE rating report gives Tiviakov 2.5/4, but if you look at the TWIC report[4] he won his first round 1.5-0.5, then lost 1-3 (2 draws then 2 losses) to Ivanchuk. So the only way I can reconcile the two reports is that he drew 2 games with Ivanchuk (which were rated) then lost 2 rapids to Ivanchuk (not rated). So no regular time control losses there, as far as I can tell. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a knockout event. Chessbase does show two draws and two losses to Ivanchuk that day. Bubba73 (talk), 00:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Tiviakov, whom Peter Ballard referenced at the beginning of this section, Chessgames.com shows him losing 14 games in 2004 and 2005, but they all seem to be outside the specified period. Krakatoa (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please fix my link?[edit]

In the References section, I cite an Internet article by Tim Harding, and supply an author-link for Tim Harding (chess). However, it doesn't show up, nor is it redlinked. I have no idea why the author-link doesn't work. Can some take a look at this and see if you can fix it? Thanks. Krakatoa (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Apparantly "cite web" needs "authorlink" instead of "author-link" (with a hyphen). "Citation" can take either. Bubba73 (talk), 02:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longest game[edit]

Do two computers count? http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/honor.htm 493 Moves. SunCreator (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off hand, I'd say no, but you'd need context. Since computers don't get tired, or even die, there's literally no limit. BashBrannigan (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last 402 moves of the 493-move game were king versus king, which I believe is a draw (material insufficiency) whether anyone claims it or not. So I don't think that should count. Krabbé also mentions computer games of over 300 moves with opposite-colored bishops, where neither player "knew" about the 50-move rule. Of course, you and I can sit down and break the "longest game" record tomorrow, if we just reach some dead-drawn ending and neither of us ever invokes the 50-move rule or three-time repetition. Krakatoa (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, playing hundreds of moves in a clearly drawn position should obviously not count. But it would be interesting to find the longest computer game which is not trivially drawn before the last move. Endgame databases have found positions which take >500 moves to win (if the 50-move rule is ignored), but I don't know if these ever come up in "real" computer games...Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum moves??[edit]

This one looks out of place with the others. This is a composition, while ALL the others are people playing in tournaments. Also, it's not explained very well. I considered deleting it, but thought I should get other's views. The only advantage of it, is that it has a visual component, which is otherwise lacking on this page. BashBrannigan (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen this page, and I agree that the position is not a "world record". I can't find an article on "extreme positions in chess" or similar: it would belong there if anywhere. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No more comments, so I've deleted this example. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making Wikipedia less useful, however the info was preserved here, better try to take that down too! https://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/what-chess-position-has-the-most-number-of-possible-moves 2600:8800:7900:1A9:4861:8D43:BFD4:4526 (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Gunina's perfect tournament[edit]

I am restoring Valentina Gunina's perfect score at the 2010 Moscow Blitz tournament Women's section on the following grounds, despite it being once reverted by Krakatoa on the grounds of Wikipedia:Notability.

  • It is covered by a well-respect chess news website (Chessbase)
  • The uniqueness of the result has been noted by the current women's world chess champion: [5]
  • It is a fairly high level tournament with many titled players (IMs, WGM, WIMs). Note that full grandmasters are extremely rare among women.
  • In blitz chess, the standard deviation is larger (more upsets) so a perfect score is even more difficult than at slow time controls. Players losing in blitz to other players rated 200-300 points below them is not uncommon.
  • Wikipedia:Notability is a requirement of the subject of the full article, not individual facts within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John85 (talkcontribs) 07:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ChessBase article cited for this achievement mentions only one International Master who played in this tournament - not very impressive. Contrary to your claim, Alexandra Kosteniuk does not note "the uniqueness of the result" - all she said at the source you cite is "And, in the women's section, WGM Valentina Gunina, was the best performere [sic] by winning all her 17 games." Winning a women's-only blitz tournament with a perfect score is not, to my mind, significant enough to warrant inclusion. Anyone else care to weigh in on this? Krakatoa (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest player to be rated?[edit]

The article claims that the youngest player to achieve an Elo rating did so at about age 5, attaining a 1283 rating. This seems very doubtful. Michael Aigner, in an article on the United States Chess Federation website, notes that a 3-year-old scored 3/7 in the 2010 Golden State Open. Krakatoa (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is not uncommon for us to have five-year-olds in our local scholastic tournaments. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deleting it. For the reasons we've discussed above it's extremely doubtful, nor is there any showing that www.mid-day.com is a reliable source for this information. The cited article offered no basis for its conclusion that this player was indeed the youngest rated player. Krakatoa (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

minimum percentage for simul record?[edit]

Is there a minimum percentage score for a simultaneous exhibition be considered for a world record? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of cause. And it is not that low. I remember 50% or 75%.-Koppapa (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering of Perfect Tournament Scores Section[edit]

Would it not be more practical to order this section by the number of wins achieved? The list is ordered by date at the moment, which seems to make some sense, but people would more likely to be looking for the 'greatest' achievement rather than the 'first' IMO. Alternatively, we could put the various stats on this page into sortable tables. Thomasdav (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since ordering the list a few months ago, this section has become even more unruly, esp. with the poorly formatted links to Wesley So's achievements (on a side note, this player seems to get an almost disproportionate amount of coverage on Wikipedia, so I'd suggest watching any edits concerning him for relevance). If nobody objects in the next few days, I'll probably re-format the list into a table with all extra information (e.g. Kostic being the only non-british player at the hastings tournament) below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdav (talkcontribs) 07:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most wins of a national championship[edit]

This is one of those records where an extended discussion is likely to turn up new record holders repeatedly, when people like me stumble across this page and happen to know of a player who can beat the currently listed one. Right now Ortvin Sarapu is listed as the record holder, having won or co-won the New Zealand championship 20 times. However, a press release from the Guatemalan Sports Federation states that Carlos Juarez has won that country's championship 24 times. Here is a link to the press release (in Spanish): http://cdag.com.gt/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Final-Masculino.pdf. I am submitting an update to list Juarez as the record holder, but would not be surprised if somebody else has surpassed that figure. Caissanist (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most wins against World Champions[edit]

In the interests of being neutral about the FIDE/Classical split (as well as the fact that the Nigel Short and Judit Polgar articles count them), I think we should also have most wins against FIDE world champions. I've done some looking on Chessgames and Kasparov has beaten 11 (everyone since Smyslov onwards except himself and Fischer). Karpov hasn't beaten Ponomariov so he has 10 at best. Korchnoi has 10 (the 8 classical champions listed in the article, plus Topalov and Ponomariov). and Short has defeated 9 (see Talk:Nigel Short). I know this is WP:OR, but I can't imagine anyone else being in a position to defeat 11 World Champions, and it's easy to verify on Chessgames too. I propose saying that Kasparov has defeated 11, without claiming it as a record. Adpete (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here (and elsewhere) is that editors have set their own standards of which World Champions and/or time controls are relevant, instead of following the information set out in reliable sources (such as [6]). Toccata quarta (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't count that as a reliable source, in terms of notability. This was a puzzle competition, in which the FIDE champions were excluded only because Kasparov "decided that was unfair to the older players". So they acknowledge that there are two ways to count the record, but only chose to exclude FIDE champions for a pretty arbitrary reason. Adpete (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. that article only attributes 6 to Korchnoi. I've no idea what they missed, because it's easy to check that his score is 8. Adpete (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ChessBase is not a reliable source? Good. Can we proceed by deleting the whole Index of chess articles? Toccata quarta (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have misinterpreted what I wrote. I did not say Chessbase was not a reliable source. I said that particular article was not a reliable source in terms of establishing notability. What I meant was, you cannot use that article to argue that one record is more notable than another, because it was a trivia competition, and Chessbase even felt the need to justify why it listed one record rather than another. Adpete (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Judit Polgar has also defeated 11 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r), why isn;t she included in the paragraph alongside Kasparov & Korchnoi ? Greg Holden 08 (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to including Judit Polgar but it should be cleanly verified. The Judit Polgar article says she's beaten 11 world champions including both classical and rapid games. If this is indeed a record then she can be included; however if it has been beaten then it shouldn't be (and whoever beat 12 or more world champions should be included). The section as it is cites no sources, and I cannot easily verify the records, so I won't make changes to the section. Banedon (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fewest moves to stalemate[edit]

What about fewest moves to stalemate? (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fools mate[edit]

I thought 2 moves was the least needed to get checkmate. http://www.chess.com/article/view/2-move-checkmate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfectamundo (talkcontribs) 20:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This page is poorly organised, with unrelated records mixed up in no particular order. I'm going to add a few subheadings. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Longest-running chess column[edit]

Sorry, I am only user on the German speaking Wikipedia (user frostengel there) and therefore have to post anonymous here. The record posted here is not the real record, as https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_B%C3%B6hringer German chess player Wolf Böhringer lead the "Schacheck" for over 59 years. It was printed once a week for the whole time in the "Heilbronner Stimme", news paper of a German city. The "Schackecke" (chess corner) still exists but now someone else leads it. Still the record for a printed chess column seems to go to Wolf. Jochen (user frostengel on German wikipedia); 9:11 (GMT+2), 15 September 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fewest Sicilian Defences in a tournament[edit]

Please delete this "record". It is not mentioned outside Wikipedia. --Chvsanchez (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make such changes yourself. Agree that this record/piece of trivia is dubious. In the 19th Century the Sicilian had a poor reputation so it's quite likely that there were tournaments with no Sicilians back then. For modern day tournaments, statistics indicate that about 40% of the time Black responds to 1.e4 with a Sicilian. If we assume from this that 50% of players sometimes play the Sicilian as Black, then in a round robin tournament of 12 you'll see no Sicilians about 0.5^12 times, or about 1 in 4000 tournaments. Very rough estimate of course, but it happens sometimes. Someone with ChessBase or similar might be able to construct a query to identify "no Sicilian" tournaments. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That section was added by the chess editor for whom I have the greatest respect, but I think it was correct to remove it. It's an interesting bit of trivia, but not all interesting trivia is a world record. Quale (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shortest game[edit]

Article states: "In terms of number of moves, the quickest mate possible in chess is known as Fool's mate (1.g4 e5 2.f3?? Qh4# and variants thereof)". How many moves is that? 3 I assume but it's not obvious to someone who doesn't know chess notations. Can someone who is sure add the number of moves to the article? Cls14 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consecutive wins record[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit in dispute is this one: [7]

I think it's not worthy of inclusion because it's an example of a much-higher rated player playing in small tournaments. Teknews thinks that doesn't matter. I'm requesting a 3rd opinion, because I don't think we'll be getting anywhere by further discussion. Banedon (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the firmly established record of Bobby Fischer from 1963 to 1965 involved his wins from the "Western Open" and the "New York Open". Fischer also played players much weaker than him in those tournament. Also, how can we say that we will count wins from the Western Open & the New York Open, but we will not count wins from the Idaho Closed, and the Idaho Open? That seems pretty subjective, and arbitrary. The key point is that this is a record of "Consecutive Wins" ONLY. There are no arbitrary qualifiers in this statement. Nowhere does this record state that we are going to count wins from the New York Open, but not count wins from the Idaho Closed, and the Idaho Open. Clearly this new record should be listed here, as it is accurate, and correct. This is a record about "Consecutive Wins" Period. Also, State Championship wins, pretty good tournament wins, and should not be discounted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What if I told you I won my primary school championship six years in a row, mustering 42 consecutive wins in the process? Banedon (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that if you can prove your wins, and that those were actual tournament games, then you may have a record. I have already offered a link to the US Chess Federation site, proving that FM Lucky has won the 36 Classical Chess games, in official tournaments. Also, we are talking here about a highly ranked Fide Chess Master, we are talking about Official tournaments sanctioned by the US Chess Federation, and we are talking about State Championship Tournaments, and State Championship Open Tournaments. These are real results, these are proven results, and these are results by a Chess Master. This is clearly a chess record of consecutive wins, and there is no reason that his record should not be accurately reflected here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknews (talkcontribs) 03:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments - there is far too much detail considering that this player is not even considered notable enough for his own article, and isn't even mentioned in any other wikipedia chess article. Also, it appears none of these events complied with FIDE conditions and were not FIDE rated. [8] And as already pointed out the achievement is not so impressive when you consider that most of his opponents were rated over 400 below him. It deserves a passing mention at best, per WP:UNDUE. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind the following: The tournaments that Fischer played in, including the Western Open, and the New York Open were not Fide rated tournaments. Also, all of the games that Steinitz played were not Fide rated, especially since they were played before Fide even existed. Many of Fischer's opponents were 400 points weaker than him, and many of Steinitz's opponents were considerably weaker than him, and probably about 400 points or more weaker in strength. That is the whole reason that Steinitz won 25 consecutive games, and why Fischer won 24 consecutive games. Nobody wins 25 games in a row, against opponents that are his exact equal. There is no qualification here about these tournament games having to be Fide rated. That is just an arbitrary qualifier that is not stated in the record of "Consecutive Games". This is not a question of the results being impressive, as the question is ONLY in "consecutive tournament games". If you are looking for "impressive victories", then there is another records category on this Wikipedia page, which is called "Consecutive wins against Masters". That is an entirely different category of record, and one that qualifies that the opponents need to be masters. There is no question at all that FM Lucky has the new record, and that all of these other qualifiers are simply red herrings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknews (talkcontribs) 05:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four points:
  1. Fischer's streak included wins over GMs, and Steinitz's streak included victories over the best players of his day. Did Lucky defeat any GMs in his win streak?
  2. Do we have a reliable secondary source for this claim? What I see is a primary source that doesn't claim any kind of winning streak. It looks like the editor is inferring that from the primary source. I consider this to be original research. This isn't permitted on Wikipedia, and I would remove it and restore the previous text on that basis alone. There's no way we can accept this addition without a good source that explicitly makes the claim that this is the longest winning streak. It's entirely possible that longer streaks could be suggested by primary sources, so we need a reliable secondary source.
  3. MaxBrowne is right, the level of detail and language is completely unwarranted in this article. The section is about 600 words, at least 20 times longer than could possibly be justified.
  4. The nature of this addition suggests a conflict of interest. Does the editor have a personal connection to Lucky? Quale (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are the answers to the above points:

1. The writer refers to Fischer having wins against GM's. However, he may be looking at the wrong record. There is an entirely different record category on this Wikipedia page, which is titled: "Wins against Masters". In the category that we are discussing, the category title is simply "Consecutive Wins". There is no requirement that the opponents be masters. Even still, Lucky does have a win against a master, and several experts. Although this is not a requirement here, because the category is simply consecutive wins against tournament players. 2. The writer goes on to make a comparison about Steinitz playing some strong players. Yes, some of Steinitz's opponents were strong for that time period, and some of them were very weak. Some of Steinitz's opponents would have been weaker than the master and expert opponents that FM Lucky had beaten in his winning streak. However, this argument is all irrelevant, and a complete red herring. The records question here is not about the strength of the opponents, but it is ONLY about the length of the winning streak, against tournament players. We keep coming back to arguing the strength of the opponents, and the only question here is the length of the winning streak. When looking for the strength of the opponents, one must consider ONLY the other category, which is the category of "Wins against Masters". That is a different category, in which the title is held by Fischer, for his 20 wins against masters. On a side note: Although it really doesn't matter, FM Lucky did beat a strong master, several experts, and several former state champions, in 2 different states, in his record winning streak. I have already offered a source, and proof of FM Lucky's winning streak, which is proven and back up by the US Chess Federation. That link is in the article, shows FM Lucky's complete tournament record, and is 100% of his winning record. Other articles, and more sources are being published soon, which will only back up the original source from the US Chess Federation. Possibly the article could be thinned out, with less words. However, with all of the red herring questions that have arose, it seemed necessary to provide enough information to prove the point that FM Lucky is the new record holder. Any attempt to remove the article completely will only be doing readers a disservice, by hiding the truth, and presenting an old & outdated record. 3. In conclusion, just look at the actual words in this record: "Consecutive Wins" Now, compare that record category with the other related record, which is: "Consecutive wins against Masters". Now, FM Lucky is clearly the new record holder in the category of "Consecutive Wins". There is NO inference in that category that all opponents need to be masters, as that is the Other category. There is NO inference of a rating differential. There is NO inference of Fide rated games. Clearly the Steinitz games were not Fide rated, and many of the Fischer games were not Fide rated. There are NO hidden inferences in this category. The category is simply, and plainly written, which is just: "Consecutive Wins". All other comparisons of who's opponents are totally irrelevant. I recommend that the article should definitely stay, otherwise it will be doing a disservice to readers, by hiding, and covering up the real truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknews (talkcontribs) 07:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MaxBrowne for chopping that edit down. A tournament listing for me isnt enough to allow this edit. Secondary sources are essential for it and I can only find an Idaho Chess Association article which isnt conclusive and goes only as far as talking of a State record. The burden of evidence on edits is with the editor adding the info. If you cant provide those sources fairly soon, I would have the whole edit removed. If this is allowed then we could have all sorts of club players with no better credibility offered for addition. Teknews didnt answer the fourth point either. Is there a conflict of interest? Jkmaskell (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, during Fischer's 24-game run the vast majority of his opponents were recognized masters except for a few in the NY Open (the last open Swiss he ever played in), and one (Smyslov) was indisputably world class. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict of interest. My main concern the the record is accurately reflected. A club player could not simply claim a record here, without proving the tournament wins. I have already offered the link to the US Chess Federation site, whereby the US Chess Federation has proven the 36 game winning streak from FM Lucky. Also, the article that you cite from the Idaho Chess Association, and Northwest Chess Magazine, from several months ago, wrote that FM Lucky had achieved a winning streak (in Idaho at that time) of 27 consecutive wins. If you add the 4 previous tournament games that were played in Nevada, and the last 5 tournament games played in December, then that proves the 36 wins, from a secondary source. As to the 24 game winning streak of Fischer: Some of his opponents at the Western Open in Bay City, MI, and at the New York Open, were only B-Players, A-Players, and experts, especially in the early rounds of the random open tournaments that he played in. The weaker players that Fischer played were much weaker than the Master, the Experts, and the (8) games involving former State Championns that FM Lucky had beaten in his 36 game winning streak. However, this point of discussion is completely irrelevant, and going in the wrong direction. The record here in question is strictly about "Consecutive Wins" versus tournament players, played in official rated tournaments. It does not matter who played the stronger opponents, or how many Masters the FM Lucky played, versus how many Masters that Fischer played. Those discussions involve entirely different records, and entirely different issues. If you want to discuss wins against masters, then there is a totally separate records category here, which is titled" Most Consecutive Wins Against Masters". Bobby Fischer holds that record, with his 20 wins against masters. We are discussing a totally different record here, that does not pre-suppose numbers of masters played. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknews (talkcontribs) 17:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer's last 4 opponents in the Western Open (i.e. from when his winning streak began) were all recognized masters - Ronald Finegold, Arthur Bisguier, Donald Byrne and Hans Berliner. The New York Open in Poughskeepie is not well documented but his opponents included Bisguier, and Radojcic was also a master. So of the 24, only 5 were not masters. MaxBrowne (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem likely that 36 wins is a record. For instance, a local (Pittsburgh) chess teacher has at least 30 consecutive wins. When he takes a class of pupils, he promises to get them all rated games, and if there is an odd number, he plays the odd man, and of course wins. This is not an uncommon practice among teachers of junior players. I think that if random USCF rated events are allowed for this record, the record is probably well above 36. I do not have time to search the USCF rating database to confirm this; I think the burden of proof is very much on the person claiming the record. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

36 wins is definitely the record, unless you can offer proof otherwise. You can't say that it seems unlikely, without offering any proof at all. You are offering no proof that a chess teacher has won 30 consecutive tournament game wins. Where is your link to that? You are just making a random assertion, and providing zero evidence. In the case of FM Lucky, there was already a link to the US Chess federation website, proving, and showing his tournament record, in which the USCF has provided in chronological order. Also, you say that the burden of proof is for the editor to prove a negative? That makes no sense at all. The editor has already proven the record of FM Lucky, and it would be impossible for him to research into every players record, for the possibility that someone else may have a high record. It's up to you to prove your assertion, if you claim someone else may have done better. If you say that you don't have time to back up your claim, then you shouldn't make the claim in the first place.

The point regarding Fischer's record has already been well argued in the above notes. The point that at least 5 of his opponents were not masters, is further proof that in this category, there is no requirement that all opponents need to be masters. It has already been agree to that Fischer did play many strong players, although that is not the relevant factor, in dealing with "Consecutive Wins" ONLY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to drag my chess teacher friend into the argument, but if you want to look at his MSA page, it's here: [9].
I looked up Mr. Lucky in the same database, and I don't dispute that he has 36 wins. I didn't see any wins against players rated above 1900; did I miss any?
I am using the phrase "burden of proof" with its conventional meaning: if you claim 36 wins is a record, and nobody believes you, it's your problem, not theirs. It's one thing to claim that Mr. Lucky won 36 straight games. Anyone can look that up. It's quite another thing to claim that that's a record. A record is a record. Even if we were just talking about the United States since 1991, you would still have to comb through the whole MSA database and demonstrate that no one else had a longer streak. Good luck with that. But the MSA database doesn't go back before 1991, and it only covers the United States Chess Federation. This might give you an idea why nobody else is claiming the kind of record that you are claiming for Mr. Lucky. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding FM Lucky not beating anyone over 1900, that is not correct. Take a look at this tournament here: http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?201308115732.1-10462967 The first 2 games of his streak start with beating a 2200 Master, and then beating an expert after that. In his next tournament, he beat a 2136 rated expert twice. Here is the link for that: http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?201309282562-10462967 I disagree on the whole burden of proof issue. It is a settled fact that FM Lucky won 36 games in a row, since anyone can look that up, and verify it on the USCF website. If anyone doubts that 36 consecutive wins in a row is a record, then they will have to do 2 things: A. They will have to show that someone has more than 36 wins in a row. B. They will then need to remove and delete the Steinitz record. If 36 wins in a row is not a record, then certainly 25 wins in a row is not a record either. Neither would the modern record of Fischer winning 24 games in a row be a record. I'm pretty sure that the number 36 is higher than both 25 and 24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknews (talkcontribs) 21:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Idaho Chess Association article isn't definitive on the claimed record. "At any rate, the 27 consecutive wins, that FM David Lucky has achieved with this event, is certainly impressive whether it is an all-time record for Idaho or not." is the last line in the passage referring to Lucky. The article's author clearly isn't certain about it. There is a ChessBase article detailing the Fischer 24 wins, which counts as supporting secondary source. Rating list records isn't enough by itself. We do need secondary sources. The burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim. Jkmaskell (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentioning, and quoting the Idaho Chess Association article, which was printed in Northwest Chess Magazine, August Edition. This is the second source, and the article can be seen on page 4, at the following link: http://nwchess.com/nwcmag/pdf/NWC_201608_opt_color.pdf The article is very definitive, and clarifies the following points: A. FM Lucky had a consecutive winning streak of 27 games played in Idaho, as of August. * However, when you add in the (4) games FM Lucky won in Nevada, just prior to his Idaho wins, and add in the (5) wins the FM Lucky just won in December, then he reaches the magic number of 36 straight consecutive wins. Incidentally, the 4 wins in Nevada, and the 5 wins in December have already been verified on the other source, which is the US Chess Federation website (link already provided a few times). Now, the author of the article, clearly states he knows for sure that FM Lucky has won 27 Idaho games in a row, and there is NO uncertainty in that article. Combined with the USCF tournament record, we know 100% for sure that FM Lucky has an overall consecutive winning streak of 36 games in a row. The author of the Northwest Chess article also clearly states that he knows of nobody at all who has ever broken the record of FM Lucky. The author does mention that he doesn't have complete omniscient knowledge, and doesn't know whether or not it's an all time record. That is only a statement of his own personal research, and his statement can equally be applied to Steinitz's record or 25 wins, or Fischer's record as well. The key point is this: There is a second source, and that information about FM Lucky's winning streak was published in Northwest Chess Magazine. The author clearly states that he believes that FM Lucky set a record, and that he knows of nobody who has ever beaten his record. Therefore, we now have the USCF rating list as the primary source, and we now have the Northwest Chess Magazine as the secondary source. These are two extremely solid, and reputable source. It is hard to get better sources than the United States Chess Federation, and Northwest Chess Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknews (talkcontribs) 01:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking the source this is definitely better than the one currently in the article. However I'll note that the source doesn't explicitly confirm that it is a record. It confirms that FM Lucky won at least 27 consecutive games, but qualifies that with "(that may or may not be a record)". I don't think anyone is contesting that FM Lucky won 27 consecutive games, but rather if it is worthy of a record. If this is indeed taken as a record then it can't be too hard for a top-class GM to break. In fact in the current article we have "In 1922, José Raúl Capablanca, the recently crowned World Champion, played 103 opponents simultaneously in Cleveland. He completed the exhibition in seven hours, scoring 102 wins and one draw (99.5%), the best result ever in a simultaneous exhibition on over 75 boards." A simultaneous exhibition isn't a tournament, but it's more strenuous than a tournament, and Capablanca won at least 51 consecutive games in that exhibition. Banedon (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the statement needs a reliable 3rd party claim that it is a record. E.g. if Tim Krabbe or Edward Winter writes an article saying "Most consecutive wins record broken, FM Lucky wins 36 consecutive tournament games" then sure. Otherwise I'd rather exclude it entirely as too flimsy. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a couple of points here: Some people get confused on the different types of records there are. A Simultaneous exhibition is a completely different type of event, from a classical tournament game. The consecutive winning records in this category are all about "classical tournament chess games", and NOT simul games, and not blitz games. Next point: You mention that the author of the NW Chess magazine says: "(that may or may not be a record)" If you read the complete article, then you will understand why the author says that. In the article he talks about a player from the past who had a very long "non-losing" streak. Many people confuse the differences between a "non-losing" streak, and a "consecutive winning" streak. However, the author then states the following: The other is that the writer of the article from 1960 (Dick Vandenburg) considers the perfect record to be maintained if a draw had been the result of the 1960 game, implying that Mr. Buckendorf did or could have drawn games during this time." The point is that the player from the past had a non-losing streak, and not a consecutive winning streak. Since the author (Jeff Roland) doesn't have all records from the past, he then hedges himself at the end of his article, since he doesn't know for sure, and doesn't have all past records. However, clearly the author points out that he does not know of anyone who has ever beaten FM Lucky's record. Secondly, we don't need the source to confirm conclusively that FM Lucky's 27 wins in June, or his 36 consecutive wins from 2013 - 2016. That is not the job of the author. The author just needs to verify FM Lucky's record, and then his record can be compared to existing known records, such as the Steinitz record. Next point: You claim that "If this is indeed taken as a record then it can't be too hard for a top-class GM to break." That statement is so wrong, for multiple reasons. First of all, if it was so easy for a GM to break the record, then why haven't they broken the Steinitz record in the last 100 year? That is because it is NOT so easy to break the record. GM's are notorious for having many draws, and especially in the last round, when a draw will clinch first place. FM Lucky played for a win in the last round of 8 tournaments in a row, even though a draw would have clinched first place in each of those events. Secondly, GM's avoid many tournaments whereby they may get upset, and lose rating points. Thirdly, I can claim that I could have beaten Michael Phelps record in swimming if I wanted to, but the whole point is that I haven't, and I didn't! GM's have had over 100 years to try and beat the Steinitz record, but they haven't yet. On the other hand, if a GM comes out and finally beats the new record held by FM Lucky, then that's great for the GM, as he will deserve the record (if and when that happens). However, we don't award records to people because MAYBE they could beat the record of somebody. Last point: You say that if Tim Krabbe or Edward Winter says that FM Lucky has the title, then you will agree. I'm sorry but this record is the record, and it is not dependent upon what any one person out there says. The records stands on its own merits, and has already been proven by 2 different sources. I'm sure that in time, Tim Krabbe will update his own site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simultaneous is obviously a completely different type of event from a classical tournament game, but I used that example to illustrate that Capablanca could easily have beaten all his opponents if he had just bothered to play in their tournaments. This is not surprising. Here's another source on Magnus Carlsen doing a clock simultaneous wipeout of three amateurs, two of which have played in tournaments [10]. Carlsen can undoubtedly beat FM Lucky's record if he so desires, except he probably doesn't care because what's the point of winning 100 consecutive games against players rated 900 points below you? In the same way GMs don't play at their local chess club's tournaments because it's meaningless. GM games against other GMs are notorious for having many draws, but a GM against an amateur would be expected to win in less than 30 moves (something I read about in one of Burgess's books and can source if you want - Burgess also said that it's unlikely a GM plays in a weekend tournament circuit in the UK, and if he does so it's just to keep in touch with friends). In the same way things such as the first round of the FIDE world cup tends not to be very interesting, and many chess tournaments have some kind of age or rating restriction.
I think for this claim to stay, it must be backed up by a source that explicitly says FM Lucky's 36 consecutive wins is a record. The source must say that the 36 consecutive wins is a record. If it simply says he won 36 consecutive games, that's not enough. Otherwise there's a good chance uninvolved editors will say it violates Wikipedia's policy on original research. If you really think Tim Krabbe or Edward Winter will really verify this record eventually, then we can wait until "eventually" happens to update the article. There is no urgency after all.
You may want to read WP:VNT. "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct". Banedon (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have a WP:SPA and an IP based in the same geographic area (Idaho) as the person in question, both red flags for potential WP:COI editing. I also think it is natural that there is resistance to including the material in the article especially when it's depicted in such a way as to compare this little known and non-notable player to Steinitz and Fischer. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody was adding their own views to an article. On the contrary, the previous editor was taking one sentence completely out of context, from a full page article. The point was that if the editor is going to quote one sentence out of context, then he needs to read the full article, so that he understands what that sentence even means. Some of the above discussions are about motives, and speculative theories about "maybe" someone could possibly beat the consecutive winning game record. Maybe they could, and maybe they couldn't. If and when they do, then at that time, we can recognize their new record. However, they can't get recognized based on a theory that maybe, possibly someone else could beat the record. Right now we have to deal with the reality of today, which is that FM Lucky is the new record holder of consecutive wins. Now, if you end up removing the reference to FM Lucky's new record, then you absolutely have to remove both the reference to the Steinitz record of 25 wins, and of the Fischer reference of 24 wins. You will just have to replace it with a statement that says: We have no idea who holds this record". It would be a complete and utter deceptive lie to mention the Steinitz consecutive wins of 25 games, and the Fischer wins of 24 games, without mentioning FM Lucky's 36 games. Also, even if you make the strange point that the Northwest Chess article only mentions FM Lucky's 27 wins (not counting the 4 wins in Nevada, and the 5 wins in December), then FM Lucky is STILL the records holder, since even his 27 consecutive Idaho wins would beat both the Steinitz record, and the Fischer record. By the way, FM Lucky is very well known in Idaho, and does have a lot of fans in the Idaho & Northwest areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the NW Chess article that you cited, I appreciate that you might not necessarily have been acting out of conflict of interest, and thanks for diligently including the citation. But this secondary source is like a nail in the coffin. The author says, "... certainly impressive whether it is an all-time record for Idaho or not." In other words, he's only considering Idaho, and even then he doesn't know if it's a record. The title of this Wikipedia article is "List of world records in chess." It isn't "List of Idaho records in chess." And it isn't "List of things that might be records in chess." This secondary source is telling us in plain language that this record isn't ready for prime time. Sorry.

Let me add a personal note. I am an FM, and I appreciate what it took for Lucky to become an FM. If I were in Lucky's shoes right now, I would be mildly amused to see this "record" fussed over in NW chess, but I would be acutely embarrassed to see it presented in Wikipedia, next to the discussion of Steinitz and Fischer. May I respectfully suggest that you let Lucky's FM title speak for itself. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if a runner happens to break the Idaho record of sprinting, in Idaho, and it happens to also be the world record at the same time, then should be not count it as a world record, because it happened in Idaho? If 25 consecutive wins is the previous world record, and someone has now won 36 consecutive tournament games, in Idaho, then shouldn't that still be the new world's record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknews (talkcontribs) 06:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it is claimed as a record by a third-party source. E.g. "most consecutive tournament game wins for a player aged exactly 36 years, 4 months, 8 days, 30 minutes, 3 seconds and 41 microseconds at the time of the last game played" should not be included, even if it's verified to have happened, unless a third-party source gives it as a record. Banedon (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the sprinting example works here. You would have to verify the record by IAAF standards, not just State ones and Idaho may not meet those standards for verification (thinking out loud). I'd also say that if it was a world record in sprinting, we would definitely hear about it in sources other than results sheets... Fischer is fine, as I said before we have a detailed Chessbase article on that. Jkmaskell (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your questions about the Steinitz and Fischer streaks are legitimate. Steinitz's streak ought to be mentioned in the following section, "Consecutive wins against masters", because that's what it was. The secondary source for Fischer's streak doesn't claim that it was a record, so including it on this Wiki page is, at best, optional. If you move Steinitz to the next section, and you remove Fischer, this section (Consecutive wins) is gone. Not a problem for me. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. "Consecutive wins" without qualification (or even with the minimal qualification of tournament wins) is too weak to be useful as several people have pointed out. We should implement Bruce's suggestion. Quale (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just read an independent press release on this consecutive record. Not only is the press release a third source, but it looks like it confirms the fact that FM Lucky's 36 game winning streak is indeed a world record. Here is the link to the press release: https://www.prlog.org/12609286-idaho-chess-master-state-champion-breaks-world-record.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent"? It's written by Tekworld. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a published press release, which verifies all of the facts. That's three sources now, and more articles are coming out by other organizations. What do you recommend now, MaxBrowne? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

prlog.org is not a reliable source. Anyone can make a press release there and say anything they like with no editorial oversight. From the Terms of Service, "PRLog has not reviewed, and cannot review, all of the material, including computer software, posted to the Website, and cannot therefore be responsible for that material's content, use or effects. By operating the Website, PRLog does not represent or imply that it endorses the material there posted, or that it believes such material to be accurate, useful or non-harmful.". Additionally, the company which made the press release, Tekworld, is associated with David Lucky. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the saying goes, "Why didn't I think of that?" (Meaning, why didn't I think of looking up TekWorld.) Thanks to MaxBrowne, (Personal attack removed). Bruce leverett (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other two sources, US Chess Federation, and North West Chess Magazine? Are they not reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a source for something doesn't necessarily make it encyclopedic. Records or feats of this type, that are found in encyclopedias and other authoritative texts, relate closely to the elite players of the day, engaged in master-level play. This is why they are noteworthy; because their opponents weren't pushovers. When you examine FM Lucky's opponents, they were sometimes rated around USCF 1250 (roughly 1000 Elo). Players of that standard are not regarded as accomplished at the game, and so the difficulty of the feat is much diminished. Organizations like the USCF have a duty to report on all such achievements, because they will be of local and sometimes broader interest to their members, but equally, most would recognize that the feat does not rival the significance of those performed at a much higher level. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting FM Lucky's tournament record. You may be looking at 1 game in a blitz tournament he won, from the hundred or so blitz tournament games he won. This category deals with only classical wins, and not blitz tournament wins. Although most of his opponents were either a master, several experts, and experienced strong→tournament players. 8 of his opponents were former state champions. That is true that they were not all masters though. His record fit perfectly into the original category of consecutive wins (non-master). The problem now, is that by removing the category of consecutive wins, and by changing the category for Steinitz (moving him from consecutive wins to wins against masters) people may start to question the credibility of this Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B149:52D8:9EE:E73C:AB40:6919 (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that was indeed a figure I mistakenly plucked from a blitz event. It appears his weaker opponents in classical were approximately 300 rating points higher. However, you are missing the bigger point. Substantively, we are dealing with someone who is not significant enough to claim a page on Wikipedia, playing opponents who are weaker than himself. It should therefore be clear that the significance of the achievement is unlikely to meet any sensible threshold for inclusion. I might also mention that Yakov Damsky has written a 300 page book about records in chess. It would simple for someone to list them all here and claim a good source in Damsky, but that way, Wikipedia would soon become overrun with oftentimes unimportant and un-encyclopedic facts. Brittle heaven (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting your mistake, in looking at FM Lucky's blitz tournament wins, instead of his classical wins. Other posters have made similar mistakes, but failed to admit to them like you did. Regarding your other point about his weakest opponents: Out of his 36 consecutive wins, his weakest opponents would be similar to Fischers weakest opponents, within 100-200 points. In Fischer's 1963 streak, he played some low rated player in the first couple of rounds of the Western Open in Bay City. Some of his opponents were B & A players, similar in strength to FM Lucky's weaker opponents. Also, you mention that FM Lucky was playing opponents weaker than himself. The same thing can be said for Fischer, in 1963-1965 streak. Given the fact that Fischer was clearly the strongest player in the country, then by definition, everyone he played was weaker than himself. His opponents at both the Western Open, and the New York Open, were way weaker than Fischer. Certainly both FM Lucky, and GM Fischer were favored to win in every game that they played. However, statistically, and mathematically, both Fischer and FM Lucky were definitely NOT favored to win ever single game, in a winning streak. This may be the point that you were missing. The odds of an FM winning all 36 tournament games in a row, versus even average tournament player, is something like a 2% chance. If you crunch the numbers, and do the math, then you'll see what a statistical rarity it is to win that many games in a row, even when you're a favorite in any game. Regarding your other point about having FM Lucky being included on Wikipedia: You make a good point there, and FM Lucky himself doesn't even care about such things. He's a successful businessman, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't spend any time thinking about such things. Some of his fans wanted to see him included in Wikipedia, because they thought it would be a good boost for Idaho chess. Although now that the category of consecutive winning streak has been removed, it is now all a moot point. Even I am not recommending his inclusion on the Wikipedia list, but am only following up on your message that you sent to me. I would say it's closed case, and the issue is done. You are correct that FM Lucky is an insignificant figure in the chess world, and should be kept off of the records list. Neither he, nor I, nor anybody else really cares at this point. I wish you luck, and do hope that this records page doesn't lose too much credibility, after all of the category changes, and the switching around of Steinitz & Fischer into new categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, Fischer's last 4 opponents in the Western Open were all masters, as was Paul Poschel who got a draw against him just before the beginning of his winning streak. His streak also included three undeniably world class players (Benko, Reshevsky and Smyslov). So the press release comparing Lucky's achievement with Steinitz and Fischer is so self-serving it's offensive. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has been talking about press releases for a long time, as they have moved on to other issues. There's no reason to be insulted, unless one has elevated Fischer to a god like status. I can assure you that Fischer was not a god. Let's look at the actual record though. In looking at Fischer's streak in 1963, in round 1 of the New York Open, his opponent was Ray Oster, rated between 1700 to 1800. In round 2, his opponent was Winthrop Beach, rated somewhere around 2050. In round 3, Fischer was playing John Richman, rated around 2050 to 2150. This is all according to the website link: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044175&kpage=5 In round 6, Fischer was playing Benjamin Greenwald, rated 2179. Some of the other ratings are uncertain. Given the fact that Fischer's rating in 1963 was 2685, you have a rating difference of 885 rating points in round one, a rating difference of 635 rating points in round 2, a rating difference of 535 points in round 3, and a rating difference of 506 points in round 6. Many of Fischer's other rounds in his streak probably had huge rating differences between 200 and 400 points in each of those rounds. Possibly in a few of his games his opponents may have been rated 100 points lower than himself. Even in the US Championship, Fischer played people like Saidy, Sherwin, Steinmeyer, and Berliner. They were masters, but were all rated hundreds of points below Fischer. That's why after Fischer won the US Championship in 1963, Bent Larsen gave a very famous quote, and said "Fischer won the US Championship, because he was playing against Children" (possibly paraphrased slightly). Now, of course they were they were all strong players. But in Larsens view, a 2600 playing against a 2300 is like playing against a child. Now, this is relevant because if someone is going to complain about a few games with a 400 point differential, then they need to take a closer look at the rating differences in many of Fischer's games. Anyhow, since you have changed the categories all around, these discussion now are all academic at this stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shortest game record[edit]

Concerning this edit: [11]

I don't see how Yifan's resignation after five moves can be called a record. The source says so, but it's plainly untrue, since Oscar Panno resigned after one move against Fischer and he is also a grandmaster. Earlier in the section there's also a 3-move game 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 c6 3. e3?? Qa5+ White resigns. Pinging @Dominus: since it's his / her edit. Banedon (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also concerned that recent edits to Hou Yifan are WP:UNDUE, does this silly incident really deserve a section under "Notable Games"? I already had it covered under the "2017" section, it was a minor thing that got blown up out of all proportion in the mainstream press. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You folks are the subject area experts. I am not, and I will defer to your judgment about what should or shouldn't be in the articles. Thanks for your attention. —Mark Dominus (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly then I think this should be removed. Since the game was a protest, there were many more shorter games "lost" by grandmasters. I'll go ahead and edit the section. Banedon (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shortest decisive game[edit]

I think we are skating on very thin ice with Z. Đorđević–M. Kovačević. For one thing, a "Candidate Master" is not a "Master". And, are they even CM's? The real point is that it would be next to impossible to substantiate or refute the claim that this game is a record, if we had to consider all games played at the level of these two gentlemen, because there are just too many such games, and many of them are played in local clubs or other circumstances where they cannot be verified, etc. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Tim Krabbe piece I referred to in my edit summary. It says explicitly that the players were not masters. "En als dat geen meesters waren (ze hadden ratings van rond de 2100)...". In most of the world 2200 isn't really considered a master rating, 2300 is more like it... FM level or close. That's why the DSB (German Chess Federation) doesn't even bother awarding national titles anymore, a "master" to them is someone who has the FM title. It's also difficult to verify that their ratings were even "around 2100", and in any case "around 2100" is not a "master" rating anywhere in the world. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, saying it is the shortest decisive tournament game would be even harder to verify, because the total number of such games would be even greater. If we can't say that shorter games has never occurred between players rated 2100 and higher, then how can we say Fool's Mate has never occurred in a tournament game? Banedon (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the article stands now, it says nothing about "Master" and is then certainly wrong on the matter. First, the contradiction vs. the the 3-ply "In a tournament game at odds of pawn and move" game(s) a couple of paragraphs above, and second: if we consider only no-odds games, six ply is longer than this infamous checkmate in the 2014 Chess Olympiad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of world records in chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most games without losses record[edit]

Currently this section includes the following text:

"José Raúl Capablanca went eight years without a loss (1916 to 1924, including his World Chess Championship 1921 victory over Emanuel Lasker), but this was "only" 63 games."

Assuming that this record is only there because of duration, then Steinitz must have done better - after all, he recorded 25 consecutive wins over 9 years, which means he went 9 years without a loss. On checking chessgames.com this totals 32 games. I'm going to make the edit, but if someone disagrees feel free to revert. Banedon (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of world records in chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Performance rating of perfect results[edit]

This seems to me a fairly meaningless figure. It seems to have been calculated in various ways; the current FIDE (and universal? it seems not) way is : tournament performance rating for a perfect rating = average FIDE rating of opponents + 800. Using average opponent rating instead, in the case of perfect scores, would make a lot more sense. (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most world champions in the tournament[edit]

Some more tournaments with 5 world-champions (non-exhaustive list, by quick clicking):

- http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=55428 Kramnik, Anand, Carlsen, Topalov, and Ponomariov

- http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=90344 Kasparov, Karpov, Smyslov, Khalifman, Tal

There can be more, there were various tournaments Kramnik, Anand, and Carlsen played together, and it's likely some of them had also somebody from Topalov/Ponomariov/Kasmidzhanov/Khalifman pool. Or maybe even Karpov or Kasparov.

Another interesting case:

- http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=39543 had 4/7 - four world champions (Kramnik, Anand, Kasparov, Ponomiariov) among 7 players, more than 50% participants with a title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekkk (talkcontribs) 11:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiviakov and Lalic's streaks without losses[edit]

Does anybody have the databases to actually verify Tiviakov and/or Lalic's claims to 100+ game unbeaten streaks? I believe them but it would be nice to have confirmation.

I think it would be good to rewrite this section to properly reflect the doubtfulness that this list of streaks is in any way exhaustive. I very much doubt anybody has pored through chess history enough to say with any certainty that we haven't missed many long streaks (for instance, a recent Chessbase article mentions Ulf Andersson as another claimant to a very long streak). (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiviakov sent in his 110 games to Chessbase, so I went ahead and added them to the section in question. I might rewrite the accompanying text, too. (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need some objective way to measure this. Tiviakov's streak is in many ways not that impressive since it involved 2200-2300 rated players. Is it still a streak, yeah, but if I went and played 200 games against Carlsen he'd very much be at a "200-game undefeated streak", heck he'd even have beaten the record for most consecutive wins. Still, now that Chessbase has reported on this, I would incline towards keeping the record here. Banedon (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger problem here is that editors think that chessgames.com game scores can be used to prove unbeaten streaks, or anything else. It is not a WP:RS. I think it can be provided under limited circumstances as a useful resource for the readers, but if chessgames.com is the only reference for a claim, that claim must go. 04:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC) [Re-signing, since I missed an asterisk the first time and timestamped instead of signing] Quale (talk)
I also think if we're going to report Tiviakov as a record holder, we should report Lalic too. After all, all we have at the moment is Tiviakov's word; it has not been independently verified. This section is turning out to be a real pain in the arse. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with the IP. Tiviakov did provide evidence of his streak (and Chessbase evidently believed him enough to report it), Lalic did not. List Tiviakov, but not Lalic. Banedon (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tiviakov's evidence is still just a list of games in the end. I don't believe his claim is any stronger than Lalic's. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of games with moves, names of opponents, and venue. Does Lalic's claim have any evidence backing it up? Banedon (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the European Chess Union Lalic's streak is only 108 games... no evidence is provided. [12] MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think the section is getting ludicrous now, and would rather just delete it entirely. Same goes for the section about consecutive wins. I propose we have an RfC for this. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend against this, do we really want to bring in a whole lot of non-chessplayers? We can publicize it at the WP:CHESS talk page and get some more feedback from there. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we don't have an RfC, how are we going to decide which claims are valid? It's not just whether those streaks happened - there's also the question of how high a level of opposition one must play against before the streak is valid. Banedon (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the dispute hasn't risen to the level of an RFC yet, and MaxBrowne is right to warn that an RFC would likely attract some uninformed opinion that would not make it easier to find a good solution. I think it would be better to start a new section with your proposal(s) for handling this issue in the article, advertise it on WT:CHESS and see if a consensus can be reached on this article talk page without needing the formality of an official RFC. RFC can be necessary if the involved parties are deadlocked and need outside help to break the logjam. I'm not sure we are deadlocked here yet. Of course if anyone strongly disapproves of your proposal they might create an RFC themselves, but I hope it doesn't come to that. Quale (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I'll say List Tiviakov @ 110, Lalic @ 108 per the Chessbase & ECU sources. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are question marks over some of Tiviakov's games, which didn't meet the requirements to be FIDE rated (3 games in a day, time control too short). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsen's 101-game (and counting) unbeaten streak[edit]

Is it time to drop the reference to Ding Liren's 100-game streak now that he has been decisively overtaken by Carlsen?

Also, I assume that if Carlsen gets to 110+ unbeaten games we'll lose all reference to Lalic/Tiviakov's lesser achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A153829 (talkcontribs) 17:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You draw games, not players[edit]

In the chess context, saying "Carlsen drew Aronian" means Carlsen was paired with Aronian in a Swiss tournament. You "draw" a game, you "draw with" or "draw against" a player. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Also "consistency" is not particularly important. If something can be said more than one way in English, there is no particular reason why it must be said in the same way throughout an article, let alone throughout wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style clearly states "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article." If you can prove that "drawing a player" is not proper English, feel free to correct all three instances in this article where that's the formulation. However, until then, keep it consistent. OscarVFE (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS only says that the variety of English (American, British, Indian, Australian etc) should be consistent within an article, not that only one way of expressing an idea may be used with an article. It's perfectly ok to say "Smith was killed in a car accident" and "Jones died in a car crash" within the same article, for example. I get the distinct impression that "Carlsen drew Anand" is an Americanism; Americans are more inclined to say "I wrote him" rather than "I wrote to him". "Carlsen drew with Anand", on the other hand, is acceptable in any form of English. "Carlsen drew against Anand" is less common but equally acceptable. This link, definition 13, makes a clear distinction between drawing a game (transitive) and drawing with a player (intransitive). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Performance rating records listed and unlisted[edit]

If Wesley So's performances stated elsewhere on the page are correct, the numbers should make it to that list. But since obviously nobody maintains that list, it should be checked by somebody who knows, and who can decide whether rapid/blitz should be part of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a fundamental problem with the article - it needs some kind of reliable source that provides the highest performance ratings. Right now it's a lot of sources for each individual performance, but no source that shows how they compare with each other. Wesley So's 3037 performance isn't listed either. Banedon (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that is indeed the main problem. Still, to muse over what to include if the subsection should be there at all: tournament performance is a tool for master title norms, so the FIDE Handbook stipulates that only classical time qualifies. Yet So's blitz performance could very well be mentioned in a note afterwards, as long as Lasker's is. (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Most wins against world champions"[edit]

This section is confusing. The mentioned players did not really beat "undisputed world champions" they beat players who would at some later point become world champions. E.g. Korchnoi beat Carlsen in 2004, when Carlsen had just turned 14 with an ELO well below 2600... --2001:464A:35F0:0:C887:D6DD:491F:6570 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a valid objection but fixing it would be nontrivial. How would you word the section to be less misleading? Banedon (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most wins against different reigning world champions would be a worthy record to include, if someone was able to work out...Just to get the ball rolling, I have found two players with 4: Botvinnik and Topalov [rest moved].
Sorry but this all sounds like Original Research and Synthesis to me. If there's a source saying Botvinnik and Topalov jointly hold the record for most reigning world champions beaten, then we can cite it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know but I got interested :). I have moved all that to User:Adpete/Most wins against reigning world chess champions if anyone cares. Adpete (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Steinitz under "longest unbeaten streak"[edit]

Under "Longest unbeaten streak", I do not see the point of this sentence, "Wilhelm Steinitz went 9 years without a loss (including his 25 consecutive win streak mentioned above), but the streak included only 32 games." If we are going to mention years without a loss, the winner would be Fischer's 20 years 1972-1992! But Fischer temporarily retired, you say? So did Steinitz, pretty well. And if we want to mention a streak in time for an active player, the winner would probably Capablanca's 8 years undefeated 1916-1924 (roughly 65 games). Anyway, without a reliable source saying Steinitz is the record holder by some definition, I think it should be deleted. Adpete (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I can't verify the record either so deleting it. Banedon (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most consecutive games of over 100 moves[edit]

Do we know for sure that this is a record? Sorry but it looks like original research to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Longest Think in a top-game record[edit]

Grischuk had a 72-minute think yesterday in a the candidates tournament, a top level game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgW9ez5LTX8 They asked if this was his longest think. I think we need a longest think record. Obviously we don't want to give it to anyone who tried to get listed here but who sucks. Perhaps limited to games that really matter somehow.

I believe the record is held by Brazilian IM Francisco Trois for his 2 hour 20 minute think (back when the time control was 40 moves in 2.5 hours) for his 7th move against Luis Santos at Vigo, 1980. Haven't been able to find anything more reliable than the Guinness Book of Records for this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK I found a reliable contemporary source, the Spanish magazine El Ajedrez from July 1980. Not sure if it's complying with copyright, but it's brilliant to find a first hand source. http://www.historiadelajedrezespanol.es/revistas/el_ajedrez/El_ajedrez_07.pdf The magazine itself can still be cited even if this particular scan disappears from the internet. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK it's all there now, complete with accurate citation data and archiving. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest player to defeat a grandmaster[edit]

The article currently lists Awonder Liang, but the source it is citing itself states that this is the record for "the youngest chess player in the United States to have beaten a Grand Master in a tournament game of chess". I believe, David Howell (he told this today while commentating) is the youngest: [1] I will find some more sources to see if anyone else has broken that record, otherwise I will update the article. But, please make sure while adding any records that those are for the world, and not specific to any country

That's an excellent find, but the article doesn't mention that it was a blitz game. Howell didn't beat a GM at classical time controls until he was 10 (that was Colin McNab). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ "Boy of 8 makes chess history". The Independent. 2011-10-23. Retrieved 2021-07-01.

Bogdan Lalić’s 155 game streak[edit]

Please stop referring to Lalić’s 155 game streak as ‘unconfirmed’—it has long been confirmed and I have now also added a FIDE source (his official FIDE ratings profile) which shows that he had a 155 game streak without losses, beginning in 2010. The edition war in that section needs to end; if you disagree, at least write your opinion here first. Mazedriver (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament Record -- Most games won[edit]

This entry refers to a club tournament, in which every club player who entered would have to play two games with every other player (Neue Berliner Schachzeitung, v. 2 (1865), p. 117). On 1865-03-10 22 members are reported to have entered, and already in the following issue Neumann is reported to have won first prize because he won all 34 games that he had to play (p. 155): some players have obviously dropped out already. (2nd and 3rd prize winners are announced in later issues, but with no information about how many games they played: it probably is less than Neumann, as one of the players that dropped out (Schulten) was reported to have played only three games, two of which were against Neumann.

No complete record seems to exist: we don't know if games actually were played, or if the weakest club players may have conceded their games. (We know that draws didn't count, and had to be replayed) Nor do we know anything about handicap arrangements. Neumann was considered to be the strongest player of the club: it would be odd if weaker club players had to meet him on equal terms.

Thus, while Neumann won all his games, we don't know as much of the circumstances as would would like to. The term 'tournament' seems to carry more connotations of regular schedule, all really meeting all, etc., and a fairly level playing field, some of which are known to not have been present. Athulin (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most Grandmasters per capita[edit]

"In 2005, Reykjavík, Iceland, with eight grandmasters (Jón L. Árnason, Jóhann Hjartarson, Margeir Pétursson, Friðrik Ólafsson, Thröstur Thórhallsson, Helgi Grétarsson, Hannes Stefánsson, and Bobby Fischer) had a higher percentage of resident grandmasters per capita than any other city worldwide; the city of 114,000 had, therefore, one grandmaster per 14,000 residents." The cited website claims that Be'er Sheva, Israel takes that title. Please change the citation. MistakeReporter (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect tournament scores section needs cleanup[edit]

There're clearly quite a few perfect tournament scores, so I think there should be some additional notability to be included here. Fischer's perfect scores at the US Open is clearly notable for example (because it led to a Bobby Fischer prize for anyone who repeats the feat), but I think many of the others can be removed. Banedon (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]