Talk:World Chess Championship 2008 and Rythem discography: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
FreddyJR (talk | contribs)
2,580 edits
 
Line 1: Line 1:
This is the discography of Japanese pop duo [[Rythem]].
{{Chess-WikiProject|importance=High|class=Start}}


== Infobox table ==


I just did a reworking of the infobox at the top of the article. Added field names in a left column, did some rewords, and used smaller flag images. I hope this looks better. [[User:Baccyak4H|Baccyak4H]] ([[User talk:Baccyak4H|Yak!]]) 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


===Albums===
== Head to head results ==
{| class="wikitable" width="420px"
!align="left"|#
!align="left"|Information
|-
|align="center"|1st
|align="left"|'''''[[Utatane]]'''''
ウタタネ
*From singles: '''''[[Harmonia (song)|Harmonia]]''''', '''''[[Tenkyu (New Summer Version)]]''''', '''''[[Blue Sky Blue]]''''', '''''[[Hitoritabi Shararuran]]''''' and '''''[[Mangekyō Kirakira]]'''''
*Released: [[June 23]], [[2004]]
|-
|align="center"|2nd
|align="left"|'''''[[Mugen Factory]]'''''
夢現ファクトリー
*From singles: '''''[[Houki Gumo]]''''', '''''[[Mikazuki Rhapsody]]''''', '''''[[20 Tsubu no Kokoro]]''''', '''''[[Kokoro Bīdama]]''''', and '''''[[Negai (song)|Negai]]'''''
*Released: [[May 24]], [[2006]]
*Rank 17th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s album chart
|-
|align="center"|3rd
|align="left"|'''''[[23 (Rythem album)|23]]'''''
*From singles: '''''[[Hotarubi (song)|Hotarubi]]''''', '''''[[Bitter & Sweet]]''''', '''''[[Kubisuji Line]]''''' and '''''[[Love Call|Love Call/Akari no Arika]]'''''
*Released: [[October 1]], [[2008]]
*Rank 18th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s album chart
|}


===DVDs===
The head to head results are definitely not right. IN classical It is +6 -4 and numerous draws in Kramnik's favor. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.80.131.161|24.80.131.161]] ([[User talk:24.80.131.161|talk]]) 10:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{| class="wikitable" width="420px"
::The IP is right - I frazzled it out from Megabase 2008. [[User:Miastko|Miastko]] ([[User talk:Miastko|talk]]) 13:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
!align="left"|#
!align="left"|Information
|-
|align="center"|1st
|align="left"|Utatane no Me -VIDEO CLIPS 1-
ウタタネのメ -VIDEO CLIPS 1-
*Released: [[August 18]], [[2004]]
*Rank 175th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s DVD chart
|-
|align="center"|2nd
|align="left"|Mugen Movie -VIDEO CLIPS2-
夢現ムービー -VIDEO CLIPS2-
*Released: [[June 21]], [[2006]]
*Rank 192th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s DVD chart
|}


===Singles===
:::I got slightly different score in blitz [[List of chess games between Anand and Kramnik|here]] --[[User:Jisis|Jisis]] ([[User talk:Jisis|talk]]) 16:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable" width="420px"
!align="center"|#
!align="left"|Information
|-
|align="center"|1st
|align="left"|'''''[[Harmonia (song)|Harmonia]]'''''
ハルモニア
*Released: [[May 21]], [[2003]]
*From album: '''''[[Utatane]]'''''
*Rank 29th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|2nd
|align="left"|'''''[[Tenkyu (New Summer Version)]]'''''
てんきゅっ（ニューサマー便）
*Released: [[August 6]], [[2003]]
*From album: '''''[[Utatane]]'''''
*Rank 74th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|3rd
|align="left"|'''''[[Blue Sky Blue]]'''''
ブルースカイ・ブルー
*Released: [[November 19]], [[2003]]
*From album: '''''[[Utatane]]'''''
*Rank 94th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|4th
|align="left"|'''''[[Hitoritabi Shararuran]]'''''
一人旅シャラルラン
*Released: [[April 21]], [[2004]]
*From album: '''''[[Utatane]]'''''
*Rank 137th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|5th
|align="left"|'''''[[Mangekyō Kirakira]]'''''
万華鏡キラキラ
*Released: [[May 26]], [[2004]]
*From album: '''''[[Utatane]]'''''
*Rank 13th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|6th
|align="left"|'''''[[Houki Gumo]]'''''
ホウキ雲
*Released: [[January 26]], [[2005]]
*From album: '''''[[Mugen Factory]]'''''
*Rank 12th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|7th
|align="left"|'''''[[Mikazuki Rhapsody]]'''''
三日月ラプソディー
*Released: [[August 24]], [[2005]]
*From album: '''''[[Mugen Factory]]'''''
*Rank 67th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|8th
|align="left"|'''''[[20 Tsubu no Kokoro]]'''''
20粒のココロ
*Released: [[January 1]], [[2006]]
*From album: '''''[[Mugen Factory]]'''''
*Rank 63rd on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|9th
|align="left"|'''''[[Kokoro Bīdama]]'''''
ココロビーダマ
*Released: [[March 1]], [[2006]]
*From album: '''''[[Mugen Factory]]'''''
*Rank 53rd on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|10th
|align="left"|'''''[[Negai (song)|Negai]]'''''
願い
*Released: [[April 26]], [[2006]]
*From album: '''''[[Mugen Factory]]'''''
*Rank 41st on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|11th
|align="left"|'''''[[Sakura Uta]]'''''
桜唄
*Released: [[February 28]], [[2007]]
*Rank 42nd on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|12th
|align="left"|'''''[[Hotarubi (song)|Hotarubi]]'''''
蛍火
*Released: [[July 18]], [[2007]]
*From album: '''''[[23 (Rythem album)|23]]'''''
*Rank 36th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|13th
|align="left"|'''''[[Winner (song)|WINNER]]'''''
*Released: [[October 10]], [[2007]]
*Rank 52nd on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|14th
|align="left"|'''''[[Bitter & Sweet]]'''''
*Released: [[November 17]], [[2007]]
*From album: '''''[[23 (Rythem album)|23]]'''''
*Electronic single ONLY
|-
|align="center"|15th
|align="left"|'''''[[Kubisuji Line]]'''''
首すじライン
*Released: [[February 20]], [[2008]]
*From album: '''''[[23 (Rythem album)|23]]'''''
*Rank 24th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|-
|align="center"|16th
|align="left"|'''''[[Love Call|Love Call/Akari no Arika]]'''''
Love Call／あかりのありか
*Released: [[July 23]], [[2008]]
*From album: '''''[[23 (Rythem album)|23]]'''''
*Rank 30th on [http://www.oricon.co.jp/ Oricon]'s single chart
|}


[[Category:Discographies]]
== Uncited criticisms ==

I agree that an Armageddon match is a stupid way to decide a world championship; and it is stupid as a tie breaker as illustrated in two recent armageddon playoffs.[http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4686] [http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4879] BUT criticism needs to be sourced. The criticism section is unsourced so it'll have to be removed unless a decent [[WP:Reliable Source]] can be found which criticises the format. The Kasparov/Fischer reference doesn't count because it isn't criticising this format in particular. [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 05:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:I included the source using the ref /ref wikiformat. I'll find a source for the second sentence, but I reverted the first sentence which is a source. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]] ([[User talk:Sentriclecub|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sentriclecub|contribs]]) 06:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::I disagree. You haven't provided a cite for anyone criticising the best-of-12 format, you've only said that Fischer criticised the best-of-24 format. There are all sorts of problems with using that: (1) You're extrapolating from Fischer's opinion on a quite different situation, this extrapolation is [[WP:Original Research]]; (2) Even if Fischer had been criticising best-of-12, a lot has changed since in the 33 years since Fischer refused to play, with matches gradually getting shorter; (3) Many, perhaps most, observers thought Fischer was being unreasonable, and plenty of people have come back from behind in matches (including Fischer himself); (4) Fischer's not a good person to cite anyway, he believed all sorts of crazy things. [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 06:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::On the Armageddon, there is quite a bit of feedback at [[Chessbase]] over it (including from me!), but I'm not sure that Chessbase readers count as a [[WP:Reliable Source]]. Perhaps if we can find a comment like, "most reader feedback thought that Armageddon playoffs are bad" it might be OK. [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 06:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::: I'll try to discuss this on the talk page. I've removed the critisms section, lets work on it here. [[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]] ([[User talk:Sentriclecub|talk]]) 08:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::<i>===Criticisms===

:::[[Bobby Fischer]]'s refusal to play Anatoly Karpov in a chess world champsionship match was initially based on the incentive for the player with a small early lead to draw the rest of their games and thus clinch the victory, <ref> Kasparov: My great predecessors</ref> without a real chance for the opponent to make a comeback.

:::Secondly, the conditions of the match are such that if a tie score results after the first 12 games, an Armageddon blitz game could determine the winner <ref>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4334</ref>.</i>

First, I don't really like using chessbase.com as a source, but if its the only one available then that's tolerable. Secondly, I am sure that there are some non-english sources for this. I'll try to find a source stating that if a tie score results after the first 12 games, that an armageddon blitz game could determine the winner, other than chessbase. On the fischer quote, I think its highly relevant. Especially we have a U.S. 2009 candidate, Kamsky who has potential. Also, FIDE did concede on this fischer particular fischer demand. With the start of the match only 10 days away, we'll find a source hopefully before sunday. [[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]] ([[User talk:Sentriclecub|talk]]) 08:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:We already have a source stating that there could be an Armageddon playoff - it's in the "match conditions" section. That is not the issue. The issue is who (other than random bloggers like me) has criticised it. On the issue of Fischer - FIDE did agree to Fischer's demand to remove the best of 24 condition, but that turned out to be a mistake as the 1984 K-K match proved. So that's hardly an endorsement of Fischer's proposal. But again, more to the point, Fischer was criticising something very different, 33 years ago. Fischer has not criticised ''this'' match format. [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 09:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Could you direct me to the specific section on [[wp:cite]] or [[wp:verifiability]] that you are looking at? If I skimmed a few pages of policy, I might not read things the same way as you. Could you specifically show me where you are concluding that Fischer's viewpoint is irrelevant to this article? I would never try to say that random bloggers like you and I are verifiable, but it seems to me that you're asking me to just find one source of any pro, in any news publication, and that I'm only allowed to use that specific player (if that's all the article says). I think a criticisms section should list the general criticisms, since I don't think its important the listing of players on each side of the issue. The article is about the chess match. The section of the article on conditions is about match conditions. Can't I just find a source saying someone criticizes it? and then source it? but not have to break the main idea of the paragraph? It is not so simple, so I'll read your answer, and will read the specific part of wp:cite or wp:verifiability that you direct me to, and then I'll proceed. [[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]] ([[User talk:Sentriclecub|talk]]) 11:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:: As a counterpoint, let me speculate that the prize money was $30 Billion. That would belong in the criticisms section, even if it was already mentioned somewhere else in the article. There are several right wing people who have stuff which isn't great about them listed under several sections of their article. Usually in a "criticisms" section and higher up on the page under "personal life" or etc... I strongly believe that the article needs to be fixed before the match begins. I think right now, the article not mentioning the part I want included, is a disservice to the article. That's why I'm working so hard here on the talk page to figure out how to improve the article in a way that everyone sees acceptable. [[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]] ([[User talk:Sentriclecub|talk]]) 11:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I have in mind is [[WP:SYNTH]], which says in part,

:''"Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together different sources to reach a conclusion. Even if it is published by reliable sources, material must not be put together in a way that constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."''

I submit that taking Fischer's comments on his 1975 (non) match, and applying them to this 2008 match, violates that part of WP:SYNTH.

Then there is [[WP:UNDUE]], in the sense that Fischer was a crackpot and his opinions on matches do not necessarily make sense, so are not relevant. If other people shared Fischer's views on matches, we should be able to find them, but I think you'd struggle to find anyone who shares Fischer's opinion that 24 games is too short for a match. Fischer also said that all Karpov-Kasparov matches were pre-arranged, every single move. Should we note that in the articles on [[World Chess Championship 1984]] etc? Of course not, because Fischer's view was crazy. So, given that Fischer had a track record of saying crazy things, I submit that Fischer's opinions are not relevant, unless we can find ''other'' prominent players or commentators who hold them. To quote [[WP:UNDUE]]:

* ''"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"''
* ''"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia"''

So in short, for any criticisms, we should be able to name and cite notable critics. [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 12:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:I just have a feeling that this is a case where I believe strict interpretation is not warranted. After reading the guidelines, I just have to disagree that the article should be subject to the verbatim rules. I think the article lacks mention of that the tie-breaker method is one of the worst in all of sports. Especially people who don't know much about chess, or with little understanding of chess life, will read the article and miss a very important topic. The article, as it stands now, includes a 1 line statement of the tie break process, with no focus or development of that relevant idea. It just makes a passing mention of it, then proceeds to talk about something else. I believe wikipedia editors need to also apply editorial reasoning, (for example, I witnessed a horrible decision to remove an entire controversy section of a political based article, simply because the proposer was too lazy to look up sources and felt it would be an uphill battle against a group of three zealous editors). My father is a journalist, my brother is earning a degree in journalism, I have worked as a [[Stringer (journalism)]] and have taken two workshops about how to cover a story (be it sports, or a city counsel meeting) and I'll recuse myself from further involvement in this article, as I can't be productive at this moment. ''The way I see it'' is too ingrained into me, that I can't tolerate my persistent editorial judgment nagging at me about how this article suffers because its a casualty of those guidelines you mentioned. I see no way to draw attention to the tie-breaker method, without it sounding like the article went out of its way to satisfy a guidelines, solely to justify important content. I agree with the policy, as it is something which should be followed, or else too many editors will become journalists. I just feel robbed, by the guidelines. I think its unfair that the article gives only a passing mention to a prominent feature of the match conditions. [[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]] ([[User talk:Sentriclecub|talk]]) 09:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::I understand your frustration, but for Wikipedia to work, we can't have editors inserting their opinions, however noble. There are plenty of other ways to do that on the internet. If no prominent critics can be found for the current format, this is a case of [[WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves]] - just state the match and tiebreak conditions, and chess followers can decide for themselves whether they are good or bad. [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Agreed, for wikipedia to work efficiently, its best to be a team player. Its just hard to acknowledge this balancing of my personal interests of how I think the article would best serve a casual reader, with my maverick style. I take a lot of pride in stuff that I do, but I need to learn how to compromise on the lesser 80% of stuff, and just stand bold on the most important 20%, as following [[Pareto's Principle]]. Maybe it will work itself out, now that Jao has joined the team. [[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]] ([[User talk:Sentriclecub|talk]]) 09:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I think this discussion has drifted into getting too nit-picky. The way I'd view the issues is:
:*"first to win N games" was the original format (N=10 up to but not including 1922; N=6 for 1927). Em. Lasker criticised this format in the run-up to 1922 on the grounds that it could go on for ever, especially as drawn games were becoming more common. Alekhine-Capablanca 1927 (34 games, 25 drawn) and Karpov-Kasparov 1984 (abandoned after ?48) proved him right. Other articles cite plenty of [[WP:RS]] for all this. IMO the "obvious deduction" clause of [[WP:OR]] allows us to apply Lasker's criticisms to any "first to win N games" format.
:*"best of N games" has been criticised because it gives the leader an incentive to play for draws. Steinitz and Fischer made this point - see other articles for [[WP:RS]]
:*"best of N games and champion retains in event of a tie" favours the incumbent. Apart from the "obvious deduction" clause of [[WP:OR]], IIRC Fischer made this point while arguing for a 2-game lead clause in 1975. I think the accuracy or otherwise of Fischer's claim that his proposal gave the incumbent a smaller advantage is a side-issue.
:*The new feature is a tie-breaker. If there was [[WP:RS]] criticism of this in 2006, the "obvious deduction" clause of [[WP:OR]] allows the same points to be made about 2008, provided the tie-breaker is identical - otherwise new [[WP:RS]] are required. -- [[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]]) 09:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Requesting sources for criticisms ==

If anyone can provide me a source about the tie-breaker, I'll write a paragraph that segues from the source of critism to the absurdity of possibly letting an 11 minute chess variant potentially decide who is the world chess champion. [[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]] ([[User talk:Sentriclecub|talk]]) 09:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:As the tie-breaking criteria were the same for the [[World Chess Championship 2006]], a critisism of that match could do as well. I don't think "although the 2006 format was criticized by so-and-so, it was once again employed for the 2008 match" or something like that could be considered a [[WP:SYNTH]] violation. Our 2006 article mentions nothing of the sort, though, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. -- [[User:Jao|Jao]] ([[User talk:Jao|talk]]) 07:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::That's a good point. Does the burden go to those who say nothing has changed in the last 2 years and its still relevant? Or do we need to somehow argue that something notable in 2006 is [[prima facie]] notable in 2008 also. I've invited Mr. Ballard to share his input. [[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]] ([[User talk:Sentriclecub|talk]]) 09:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Criticism from 2006 would be fine, because the match conditions are the same. For the same reason, criticism of other Armageddon playoffs would also be OK. But we DO need reliable sources: we can't editorialise, it's a clear violation of [[WP:NPOV]] policy. [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 09:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Ok, so we at least double our chances of finding a source, since it can be from 2006. That's a start, hopefully it's enough to work with, if I can figure out the optimum keywords to put into google's search engine. [[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]] ([[User talk:Sentriclecub|talk]]) 09:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's one from [[Nigel Short]], during the rapid playoff in [[World Chess Championship 2006]]: "''World Championships used to have a little more gravitas. But now they are decided by rapid hand movements.''"[http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006_10_12_archive.html] But it's not clear to me whether he was criticising the rapid playoff, or the possibility of an Armageddon (which didn't happen that time). [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 09:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for the ref, but you're right, is still in the gray area. It seems to me he is obviously talking about if its a tie after the first 12 games (played at the primary time controls), but its true, he's not being specific enough. Maybe I can try to see which tourney he was talking about, it says it happened in Oct 2006. I'm almost feeling like we should put it out there, and let the readers decide, but I'm not going to get lazy all of a sudden, I'll try to figure out Short's intention, will check back in a few hours. [[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]] ([[User talk:Sentriclecub|talk]]) 17:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::The problem with a criticism section is that it collects negative comments only. I get the impression that overall reaction to this match has been positive. Also, the main criticism is probably from Anand himself, who has said he prefers a tournament championship and that Kramnik should not have had the special privilege of a rematch. [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 23:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::And [[Gata Kamsky]] says something similar, "''personally I think it’s ridiculous that Kramnik gets so many privileges and gets basically two chances to defend his own title''."[http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3839] [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 03:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::OTOH [[Levon Aronian]] supports the Kramnik rematch: "''In my opinion the world championship should actually be decided in a match between the title holder and a challenger. That is the traditional way of deciding the world championship. We are returning to that when the winner of the world championship tournament has to play a match against the former world champion.''"[http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3978] [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 03:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::: I don't really think a criticism section is appropriate given the nature of the complaint, and the subject of the article. The criticisms section I believe you are alluding to, would be redundant after the match if the first 12 games are decisive. I'm leaning towards the proposal to just include more attention to the possibility that a bullet chess variant could determine the outcome. I think consideration needs to be worded in such a way that this fact is still relevant after the match is over, with no needed modification. Afterall, the way the tie break is spelled out now, will get killed/deleted once the match is over, if the first 12 games are decisive. Since we are running short on time, may I ask you to present the section you think is appropriate? I can't see how going about this the way you suggest, won't hurt the sequiter of the article. It is already looking like we plan on just posting the games (which isn't my preferred style, but no big deal), and will have a very small top region compared to the rest of the article. Its been a week of trying to come up with an alternative that strictly follows wp:thisorthat but I can't envision a way to blend in the source into the article without it causing content proportion problems. I'm for the idea of putting in an uncited single sentence, neutrally worded, that draws attention to the tie breaker process whereby the reader can think it over and realize its senseless. The references and citations ''are out there'' but I don't think its possible, thus any chance to improve this article is killed if we have to attach all these [[Rider (legislation)|riders]]. I can't write an article this way, so I would like to see your proposal of how to criticize succinctly the problem with the article as the article exists right now. I don't think there is a citation which is worded perfectly for what we need, so I'll defer to your judgment if we can bend the rule here, since it is awkward to go searching for the exact citation which we need, but it must be out there somewhere, because its a fact that I'm not the only one who calls ''660 seconds of armageddon'' a '''bullet chess variant'''. I'm not even a rated player, and it will make me lose sleep if going into the 10th game, the match looks drawish. [[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]] ([[User talk:Sentriclecub|talk]]) 10:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::::My preference, as stated above, is to not include any criticism section. Simply spelling out the conditions, as we already have, is sufficient. (Unless there is prominent criticism, but there hasn't been much of that). For the games themselves, we should simply present the results, with links to sites with analysis. Trying to put game scores and analysis in the article (as at [[World Chess Championship 2006]] and [[FIDE World Chess Championship 2004]]) is IMHO a waste of space. I mean, seriously, who is going to read those games scores, when there are other sites out there where users can click through the games without a board, and with proper GM analysis. [[User:Peter Ballard|Peter Ballard]] ([[User talk:Peter Ballard|talk]]) 11:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

===discussion area for [[WP:PG]] and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer#Active_Liberty common sense]===

::''Policies and guidelines express standards that have community [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Policies]] are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas [[Wikipedia:List of guidelines|guidelines]] are more ADVISORY IN NATURE. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|ignore]] the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Those who edit in [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good faith]], are [[Wikipedia:civility|civil]], seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment.''

Given the 10 days I tried to hammer this out on the talk page, I plan on sometime sunday rewriting the tie break section (and possibly match conditions) of the article, which as it stands, I think is poorly constructed and looks like [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote it! (see his section on philosophy and approach)

Its absurd to think (to myself) I have to go [http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=12181 his blog] and beg for a statement, so that i'm allowed to improve the wikipedia article by asking him "Mr. Short, I'm sorry to bother you, but wikipedia won't let me fix the World Chess Championship 2008 article, until you tell me if your feedback about the tie break, and then I have to attribute this ''minority viewpoint'' entirely on you and make the article sound like you are the only person criticizing the argmageddon clause". I have a [http://www.chessgames.com/~sentriclecub good standing] over there, and I leave the pros alone, I don't drive them off with non-sense requests, and chessgames is a happy place for its amateur-pros interactions because we leave them alone and don't frustrate them. He could signup for a Nigelshort.blogspot.com account but instead he's happy perched at our chess community.

I really think that the facts are on my side, and Nigel Short is on my side (and if Fischer was still alive, he'd be on my side), and I'm sure there are hundreds of people worldwide who don't like the 660 seconds of a chess variant disrupt the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philcha&diff=prev&oldid=244103837#Could_you_give_opinion_at_Talk:World_Chess_Championship_2008 sanctity of respect for the highest honor in chess].

So this will be my last post. Improving the article, and sidestepping guidelines, I will plan on making an improvement to the section of the article. This is a big deal to me, probably an importance level of 6. The only way I'll stop trying to improve this section (which afterall, I was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Chess_Championship_2008&diff=242454713&oldid=242443781 the one] who voluntarily took it off the page and moved it here for 12 days to try and compromise), is if Mr. Ballard or anyone else, says that the importance level to them is higher than 6. Because I really want to help out, but not if its a bigger deal to someone else.

So the compromise deliberations of the last 11 days aren't over (they just go [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Chess_Championship_2008#Requesting_sources_for_criticisms here] instead), but please only respond to this section of the talk page if you are telling me to just let this thing go, and to walk away. My main priority is trying to help write two finance articles, which are of extremely high importance (since the U.S. is in a recession, and wikipedia is a poor place to understand topics which are critical to the federal reserve) that I have a call of duty to help improve the parts which I'm actually an expert in. I'm a chess enthusiast, and I know my rating speaks for itself, plus I've only been playing chess for 2 years, so it won't hurt my feelings for anyone to tell me that my lingering at this article, to try to improve it, is a bigger deal to that person, than to me. [[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]] ([[User talk:Sentriclecub|talk]]) 05:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC) FIDE~1400 Chessmetrics~1296

:[[User:Sentriclecub|Sentriclecub]], Wikipedia policy is clear - content not supported by [[WP:RS]] may be deleted by anyone at any time. If you add your own opinions about the tie-break system, they may be deleted. If you make additional changes while adding your own opinions about the tie-break system, your entire edits may be undone. Tie-breaking systems are controversial in any competition, for much the reasons you describe in your comments. But perhaps [[WP:RS]] commentaries have avoided this because they just want to put the plit in the world title behind them as far and fast ast possible. Note that any such statement in the artilce would be deleted as violation of [[WP:NOR]] unless supported by [[WP:RS]]. Note that an eminent player's blog is at best a grey area in [[WP:RS]], and therefore not safe to use - if Short were commenting about the play if someone about whom he is known to be neutral, he would be a very good source, but he is not an organiser of top-level competitions. -- [[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]]) 08:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:54, 10 October 2008

This is the discography of Japanese pop duo Rythem.


Albums

# Information
1st Utatane

ウタタネ

2nd Mugen Factory

夢現ファクトリー

3rd 23

DVDs

# Information
1st Utatane no Me -VIDEO CLIPS 1-

ウタタネのメ -VIDEO CLIPS 1-

2nd Mugen Movie -VIDEO CLIPS2-

夢現ムービー -VIDEO CLIPS2-

Singles

# Information
1st Harmonia

ハルモニア

2nd Tenkyu (New Summer Version)

てんきゅっ（ニューサマー便）

3rd Blue Sky Blue

ブルースカイ・ブルー

4th Hitoritabi Shararuran

一人旅シャラルラン

5th Mangekyō Kirakira

万華鏡キラキラ

6th Houki Gumo

ホウキ雲

7th Mikazuki Rhapsody

三日月ラプソディー

8th 20 Tsubu no Kokoro

20粒のココロ

9th Kokoro Bīdama

ココロビーダマ

10th Negai

願い

11th Sakura Uta

桜唄

12th Hotarubi

蛍火

13th WINNER
14th Bitter & Sweet
15th Kubisuji Line

首すじライン

16th Love Call/Akari no Arika

Love Call／あかりのありか

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Chess_Championship_2008&oldid=244412200"