Talk:Hikaru Nakamura

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

Untitled[edit]

Which year is "this year"? Joyous 01:32, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Can we name some of the unorthodox openings he commonly uses? I'm curious.--Sonjaaa 06:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time his photograph was updated, he is 26 years old now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.179.125 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also - can't a better photograph be found? He looks very young in the present one; it's not accurate as he is now 22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.232.162 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biological father[edit]

Whatever happened to his biological dad? Validbluew40 (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


nakamura x rybka shuld be there[edit]

nakamura is among very few grandmasters who have won against chess engines or chess machines . rybka was crushed by nakamura this should be mensioned in this interseting article on nakamura .his strategic and alzebric math calculations also should be added to enwide the information abour naka the great. keep going naka. keep going wikipedia. [[user|user]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.192.28 (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nakamura is among very few grandmasters who have won against chess engines or chess machines

Nonsense. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite piece[edit]

The sentence about his favorite piece was added by 71.58.124.75 October 22, 2006. This was the first of only three edits by the user and at least one of the others was vandalism. Therefore I'm removing the sentence because of WP:BLP, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 05:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kasparov's assessment of Nakamura's 2011 Wijk aan Zee result[edit]

"Fischer never won a tournament ahead of the world champion. He was second in Santa Monica. Of course there were far fewer such events back then, and Fischer had several great tournament results like Stockholm 62, but it's interesting. Reuben Fine only equaled Keres on points at AVRO in 38. Then you have Marshall at Cambridge Springs in 1904 ahead of Lasker, though Tarrasch wasn't there. So unless you include Capablanca as an American player, I think you can go back to Pillsbury at Hastings 1895 for an American tournament victory on par with Nakamura's!"[1]

So Kasparov didn't say it was better than any of Fischer's wins (as the article incorrectly claims), he said that no American had won a tournament outright ahead of a World Champion since Marshall. He didn't say it was necessarily better than (say) the 1962 Interzonal, just that they weren't "on par". Also, IMHO, Kasparov's comments do not belong in the lead. I'll tidy this up if I get the time. Also, hopefully, other people will comment on Nakamura's win to give it more balance. (Great as the result was). Adpete (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kasparov: "I think you can go back to Pillsbury at Hastings 1895 for an American tournament victory on par with Nakamura's!" That's pretty clear that Kasparov believes that Nakamura's tournament result was the best by an American since the 1895 event -- more than 100 years ago. The article as it stands is correct, since that quote (which you cited, btw) is clearly in the hyperlinked reference. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As Adepte says it's still an example of WP:SYNTH, although perhaps fairly mild. There's no grounds for the article to say it's better than any of Fischer's results unless the quote says that pretty directly. (In fact the quote seems to hedge on that, saying only "it's interesting", rather than "Nakamura's result puts Fischer to shame".) If the quote says best tournament win by an American in over 100 years then that's what the article should say. The reader can draw her own inferences, it isn't our job to do that by putting words in Kasparov's mouth. Quale (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my problem is it's all a bit Kasparov-and-Fischer-centric. I'd rather the lead just said that he won ahead of the top 4 in the world (since that's a fact, not anyone's opinion), and Kasparov was quoted in full in the body of the article, so people can make up their mind exactly what Kasparov said. I'm also not too happy about saying his live rating is 9 points below Fischer's peak, unless we can find a source saying that's notable. (Personally I think it's not notable, given ratings inflation). Adpete (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tidied it up (it was rather out of control with a blow by blow description of the Wijk tournament) and put the full Kasparov quote in. I'm still not terribly happy with a simplification of Kasparov quote in the lead, but I've left the lead untouched for now. Adpete (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable to delete detail (it was streamlined as it was). The importance of such a tournament deserves the same amount of detail a tennis player would receive on wiki for winning a Grand Slam. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precise Kasparov quote included in appropriate section, which is supposed to be more detailed than the introductory sentences of the article. Given the historical significance of this tournament, for comparison's sake, the details regarding the strength of the field are essential for optimal context Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In 5 years, who will freaking care what the score was after 12 rounds or whether he played a Kings Indian. Plus you deleted all my links and inserted WP:OR. It's destructive editors like you which drive me from Wikipedia. Adpete (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- this level of detail is unwarranted. What we're seeing here is an example of WP:RECENT and perhaps WP:OWN by User:Shotcallerballerballer. Let's establish some consensus on what to include. I support the previous changes made by Adpete. — Myasuda (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poker[edit]

Should Nakamura's poker interest be mentioned?75.173.83.184 (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Head-to-head record versus top players[edit]

This section really needs a global update. If it was even completely correct as of August 2011, it has only been selectively updated since then - e.g. adding his win against Anand in London but not his loss against Carlsen. 174.29.108.183 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this section is unncessary and too much work to maintain. What are the flags for anyway? Doesn't seem consistent with MOS:FLAG. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

This article takes much text verbatim from http://hikarunakamura.com/about-hikaru/. Bongomatic 22:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that website takes text verbatim from this wiki page...look to see which originated first!! Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page claims a copyright. Bongomatic 07:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that page is violating Creative Commons license, it can be listed at Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for more information. — Myasuda (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's Maiden Name[edit]

The article claims Hikaru was born to a Carolyn Weeramantry. Carolyn later marries a Sunil Weeramantry. Is this a strange coincidence or an error in giving Hikaru's mother's maiden name? --Abenr (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a source mentioning her birth surname, so I just provided this information. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to Merrow Nakamura (as she was named when she married Weeramantry). Weeramantry is obviously incorrect.--Batmacumba (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2816 rating[edit]

The lead and infobox report that Nakamura's top rating was 2816. That's not supported in the body of the article where it should mention how he achieved this in the 2015: 2800 rating and Grand Prix 2nd place section. At present that section ends with "It also propelled his rating to a career high of 2814, and he was at number 4 in the July 2015 world rankings." The 2814 rating is correct for July 2015[2] but he then got to 2816 and #2 in the world in October 2015.[3] --Marc Kupper|talk 20:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could be argued that 2814 was a career high at the time. That said, in general I think there's far too much "ratings geekery" in the article. I removed one of the more egregious examples but this modern obsession with ratings is not a trend wikipedia should encourage. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hikaru Nakamura. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Hikaru Nakamura. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Name[edit]

Aren't Japanese names typically written with the surname first? Shouldn't it be translated to Nakamura Hikaru in italics? See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinsaku_Uesugi 185.31.142.251 (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think in Japanese they treat him as a foreigner and write his name in katakana as "ヒカル・ナカムラ", rather than in kanji as "中村 光". See ja:ヒカル・ナカムラ. Compare with the Japanese manga artist with the same name: Hikaru Nakamura (artist) and ja:中村光_(漫画家). MaxBrowne (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~[edit]

In the game given at the Notable Games section, a double tilde (~~) is twice used. This is not explained at Algebraic notation (chess). What does it mean? Widsith (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pogchamps[edit]

I think some reference to his participation as coach and commentator in the pogchamps tournament should be mentioned Santiqwerty (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Header[edit]

Him winning the Chess960 championship in 2009 and subsequently losing it to Carlsen in 2018, as well as his currently #1 position in the Blitz ratings should be mentioned in the lead, especially since the rapid and blitz positions mentioned in the article are over 5 years old now.

Maybe rapid and blitz rankings should be added to the infobox for chess players that are notably active in those categories? Jonas1015119 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Thanks for the suggestion, Jonas1015119. Whenever you believe an article can be improved, please feel free to make the needed changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit link at the top of a page or section.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—another person will likely find and correct any quickly and kindly let you know what they were. If you're not sure how to make a certain edit, feel free to ask me any questions here or on my talk page. Alternatively, you can check out how to edit a page, referencing for newcomers, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. Thanks again for you're diligence to improving Wikipedia and make information more freely available! —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Singing with Team SoloMid[edit]

Hikaru Nakamura signed with the professional esports organisation known as Team SoloMid as part of their chess division.
He is listed as being part of their chess main roster on TSM's official website here.
Perhaps this should be added to Hikaru's chess career or somewhere on this page?
Mixsmirai (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mixsmirai and thanks for the comment. This information is currently present in the article under the section Internet activity. — Bilorv (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Name[edit]

Confirmed on a stream today his first name is Christopher, though a better source may be needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better source needed indeed, particularly if this stream is not publicly archived (sources must be published). — Bilorv (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would his chessgames.com profile be a reliable source for the name? Volteer1 (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Volteer1: I would be surprised, but it's possible. How is the chessgames.com profile written? If it's by the site's community or it's automatically scraped from some such source then it's a hard no. If it's written by professionals and there's a corrections process then maybe. — Bilorv (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Never mind, it does appear that chessgames.com biographies are user generated. Volteer1 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Volteer1: No worries, worth a suggestion and we've learned something about the site for next time. — Bilorv (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the stream was publicly archived, only for subs. Maybe if he ends up putting it in a Youtube video. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the sentence about Obama be removed?[edit]

When I was reading the article, I misread this sentence thinking that it meant that Nakamura played Obama:

“Before the 2020 United States presidential election, he challenged President Barack Obama to a game of chess to raise funds for the presidential nominee Joe Biden’s victory fund and ActBlue.[119]”

I wonder is that Nakamura just challenged Obama notable enough to be in the article. I’m a new editor so I have no idea what wikipedia conventions are, I just found it a little strange this was included in the article. Light rays from the sun (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Light rays from the sun: Welcome! Since the challenge was covered by a source with a whole article (as opposed to just a passing mention), this is probably notable enough to leave in the article. It may be worth noting that there was no game between them (as far as I know). AviationFreak💬 01:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AviationFreak: That makes sense, I can’t find a good source for there not being a game so I’ll just leave the article as it is. Light rays from the sun (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why any source would publish an article about a game not happening—challenges like this happen all the time and rarely manifest. I think we should remove the sentence. It's not really a weighty statement given that Obama never responded and the source Dot Esports might be reliable but as it's a specialist publication and there are so many notable events that did happen involving Hikaru (mostly professional tournaments, which get a lot of coverage even if this article doesn't cite it all) I'm not sure it alone shows due weight. — Bilorv (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twitch[edit]

@AviationFreak and Joacom14: Is it right that we are specifically mentioning Twitch in the short description and in the lead paragraph? Isn't this promotional? Would it be better to just say "livestreamer" or "streamer" without mentioning the particular platform? I ask this, as someone who is not familiar with streaming. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on the short description, but I think it's fine in the lede. We refer to YouTubers as such, not as "videographers" (unless they make a significant amount of content for non-YouTube platforms). As Nakamura's main outlet is Twitch I think it's fine as-is. AviationFreak💬 23:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think it's fine to mention it in the lead (when not be specific when it doesn't cost any more words?), but in the short description I've removed it. "Japanese American chess player" is a short description of Nakamura. Adding anything more specific doesn't serve the purpose of being useful to mobile editors who aren't sure they have the right person, and makes it too long. And most coverage of Nakamura is not about the last three years of streaming. I have removed "content creator" from the lead as well—a rather vague phrase redundant here to "Twitch streamer". Either the "content" (I think the idea is YouTube, rather than say any courses he's done) is so important it needs to be spelled out in the first sentence (here it doesn't) or it's not worth vaguely alluding to in that sentence. — Bilorv (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the single game in the Notable Games section notable?[edit]

A quick glance at the top 10 chess players Wikipedia pages shows that only Magnus Carlsen and Viswanathan Anand have notable games (others do have notable tournaments) sections and Anand is the only other one with a full chess annotation but also provides a reason as to why it's important. This Hikaru game should have a reason as why it is notable. List of notable chess games doesn't include it either (which may be the fault of that article).

I ask that either a reason for why it's notable be provided, it be replaced with another more notable game, it be replaced with a section similar to Carlsen's page, or replace it with a notable tournaments section. KieranStanley (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Magnus Carlsen has instead is a long and good-quality Playing style section (the one here is very incomplete). Viswanathan Anand is not a good idea as its low C-class rating means it's not one of the best-quality chess player articles to model things off. I would change "Notable games" to "Example game", because it seems to me the choice of this game is to illustrate Nakamura's tactical approach. I wouldn't remove it, but if you've got a better game in mind then name it. — Bilorv (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The usual Wikipedia standards of "Notability" should apply. For players from long ago, this typically means games that appeared in print in places like newspapers, magazines, textbooks, or anthologies of games. A game that only appeared in the tournament book, even if it were well played and annotated, would not be considered notable. For a modern-day player like Nakamura, you'd at least want the game to have appeared in something like chessbase. I don't know if the game with Novikov is "notable". The website we are citing is equivalent to a book of the tournament, so it doesn't demonstrate notability. It's a nice game, but we shouldn't be calling it notable if the chess world isn't treating it that way. If you can find the game in a better source, you can cite that source in addition to citing the tournament book, and you have the best of both worlds.
I said "should" apply, but the last time I surveyed the "Notable games" sections of chess biographical articles, many of them did not adhere to the usual standards. Perhaps things have improved since then, I don't know. By the way, the chessgames.com database is a handy one for giving the reader a usable link to a game, but it's not a reliable source in the usual Wikipedia sense, so the fact that a game appears in it does not demonstrate notability. If you want to show a notable game, you should cite a reliable source, possibly in addition to citing chessgames.com. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, referring to Viswanathan Anand, the one game in the Notable Games section says that annotations are by Bologan, but it doesn't cite a reference for those annotations. It only cites chessgames.com, in which there are annotations by random pseudonymous contributors. If anyone knows where those annotations by Bologan are from, would they please add an appropriate citation! Other than that startling omission, I don't have a problem with that Notable Games section. Probably Anand has other games that are even more "notable". Bruce leverett (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates 2016[edit]

Article should mention Nakamura's result at [Candidates Tournament 2016]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.14.171 (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done In future, comments go in a new section (there should be a "New section" button at the top of your screen) and you should end them with four tildes (~~~~) to produce a signature. Links need two brackets on each side, so that [[Candidates Tournament 2016]] produces Candidates Tournament 2016. — Bilorv (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet chess record[edit]

@CarbonatedCarbon: The "world record for the most bullet chess victories in the 1|0 format in an hour" doesn't look very meaningful. Is there any authority, or even any other entity, besides chess.com (which hosted the event) that recognizes this record? Was there any control on the strength (or lack thereof) of the opponents? Unless there are good answers to these questions we shouldn't be mentioning this "world record".

importance class[edit]

why is this in Category:High-importance chess articles and the talk page of Bassem Amin who is the best player of the whole continent of Africa and won against Hikaru more often than he lost, is in Category:Low-importance chess articles? I mean, without any doubt, Hikaru is better known, but I think given the distinctions Bassem has earned, he should not be "Low importance" when this is "High importance". (The main article has "C Class" - is that coherent ?)

This section speaks for itself.[edit]

Why no mention of Hans Niemann lawsuit? Anyhoo I added. Thewriter006 (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

@Thewriter006: Wikipedia has its own rules for what to mention in lead sentences (and lead paragraphs, etc.) and how to mention it. Do not look elsewhere, such as in stackexchange, for that sort of guidance. I'm looking at MOS:NATIONALITY, which says, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability." Of course, it's obviously necessary to mention the circumstances of his birth, parentage, and citizenship in the article, just not in the first sentence.

In general, you should spend some time reading the Manual of Style. I shouldn't nag, because I myself only read it when I'm looking for the answer to some question, such as whether to include "Japanese born" here. But, as interesting and helpful as stackexchange may be, reading it for Wikipedia work is just a waste of time.

What were you referring to in the edit summary when you said the "peak FIDE rating page"? [4] doesn't say anything about Hikaru's place of birth, nor does [5]. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"peak FIDE rating page" undoubtedly refers to the wikipedia page List of chess players by peak FIDE rating. That page has its own problems, but it isn't really relevant to anything here. Quale (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it says 'Highest-ranked Japanese-born player, reigning FIDE World Fischer Random Chess Champion (from 2022)' ? why does that page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_players_by_peak_FIDE_rating say hikaru is japanese-born but hikaru's own page doesn't say hikaru is japanese-born? i think should be both say or neither say. Thewriter006 (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it says 'Highest-ranked Japanese-born player, reigning FIDE World Fischer Random Chess Champion (from 2022)' ? why does that page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_players_by_peak_FIDE_rating say hikaru is japanese-born but hikaru's own page doesn't say hikaru is japanese-born? i think should be both say or neither say. Thewriter006 (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "hikaru's own page doesn't say hikaru is japanese-born"? It says so in the first sentence of the section on Early Life. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name, again[edit]

In this article in chess.com, the memorandum by Nakamura's lawyers in support of his motion to dismiss Niemann's lawsuit is reproduced, and his full original name ("Christopher Hikaru Nakamura") is used in at least two places, including the first page and the last. It seems odd to cite this article in a footnote attached to his name, but I will do so if it's the correct way to support it. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life[edit]

User:Bruce leverett, I see you reverted my edit, however that is encyclopedic info and came from a reliable source, and such relationships are often covered in other bio articles. - Indefensible (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider "encyclopedic info" to include who is sleeping with whom. We don't know where or how Leontxo Garcia got the information. It could have changed by the time El Pais published the article. It could easily change in the future, and when it does, we won't necessarily have a reliable source to tell us about it, so we will end up with an article that says Nakamura's girlfriend is X when his current girlfriend, or even his wife, is Y. In the worst case, one or the other of the couple might consider it a defamatory rumor, and it would become a BLP problem. I have heard that these considerations have been ignored in some other biography articles, but that's a problem for those articles. Bruce leverett (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A noteworthy relationship is encyclopedic, it does not have to be sleeping together. Past history is still encyclopedic, it does not have to be a current relationship. Truth is that a reliable source reported an apparent fact which I plainly referenced in the article, it should not be considered defamatory or a problematic rumor. - Indefensible (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Format for describing chess games in the Notable Games section[edit]

I think the way games are described is very confusing. For example,

Nakamura vs. Boris Gelfand, World Team Championship 2010, King's Indian Defense: Orthodox Variation (E97) 0–1

leads to the impression that Nakamura played White and lost the game. The next sentence

Nakamura leaves his queen able to be captured four times in this win

then leads readers to believe that he won it after all.

I had to follow the link to chessgames.com to work out what the result actually was. Nakamura won playing Black in this game so would normally be listed second. I've concluded provisionally that on Wikipedia the player who is the current topic is always listed first, but, since presumably only chess players and fans would be reading this section, it seems strange to go against general chess notational conventions. Wouldn't it be better to write

Boris Gelfand vs. Nakamura

If attention needs to be drawn to Nakamura, bolding would be another option:

Boris Gelfand vs. Nakamura

Ricklaman (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s just a mistake that the names are in the wrong order both in this game and the following game against Krasenkow. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hikaru_Nakamura&oldid=1209301375"