Talk:Candidates Tournament 2024

Wrong opening?

In the Round 2 matchup between Praggnanandhaa and Gukesh, their opening is labeled as a Queen's Gambit Declined. And that's the label on the chessgames link. However, almost everyone would refer to that opening as a Catalan. Here are two sources that refer to it as a Catalan.

Chess.com labels it a Catalan after move 4 (the opening label changes from Queen's Gambit Declined to a Cataln): https://www.chess.com/events/2024-fide-candidates-chess-tournament/02/Praggnanandhaa_R-Gukesh_D (lichess does not do this, because lichess is inconsistant on when it changes its labels)

And Chessbase's article labels it a Catalan: https://en.chessbase.com/post/candidates-tournament-2024-open-2

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logosrecieved (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Current leaders

I would suggest removing them, since to qualify from the circuit you need to have 5 eligible events and from rating you need 4, which neither Aronian nor Carlsen have A3811 (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

They've been removed.

Incidentally, Carlsen has now stated that he's unlikely to participate even if he gets the spot: When asked whether we could be seeing him playing in the Candidates again, Carlsen said: "With the current format, the chances are very slim. If the format changes, maybe. But the chance of me playing in the next Candidates tournament is less than one percent." Double sharp (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe under the table there could be some more informations for each spot. For example the actual standing of the circiut with information how many tournaments everybody has played Future-Trunks (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The standings have over a hundred entries. Why not just link to FIDE's website for the information? By the end of this year, we'll know who it is. Double sharp (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We don't need the current standings, but we do need a summary of the Circuit system, possibly under the standings (like the Rating and Wild Card in Candidates Tournament 2020–2021). A3811 (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

We do need the information who will be qualifeid. not only 3 players from world cup, but

FIDE World Cup 2023 (Baku 2023), three players who finish 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

If any of these players already qualified for the FIDE Candidates Tournament 2024 or the FIDE World Championship Match 2024 at the moment of the beginning of World Cup via another qualification path, the qualification spot(s) shall be be awarded, in order of priority:

- the player who finished in 4th place in the World Cup;

- according to rating as in (E).

for example Future-Trunks (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@A3811, Future-Trunks, and Double sharp: I agree with user A3811, the FIDE Circuit is worth mentioning into detail with it's own section in the article so that it would give some body and clarity into the article. In my opinion, the FIDE and Grand Chess Tour agreement section should be renamed as the FIDE Circuit. Underneath the text that's already in that section regarding the scrapping of the Grand Chess Tour and FIDE agreement, information about the FIDE Circuit should be put there as a connecting point (probably don't have to put a table but a brief explanation would be good).

For Future-Trunks' point, I disagree as the hatnotes I have included regarding the scenarios of the World Cup qualification should suffice, as there aren't enough sources (excluding the FIDE regulations) to dedicate a whole section to the qualification scenarios, and it isn't an important event to be worthy of a section (important would be for example all three sections underneath the qualifier table in the Candidates Tournament 2022 article). SpyroeBM (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

1 source FIDE reforms the qualifications paths to the Candidates Tournament

but now this article ist wrong. Its not the winner of FIDE Circiut, who will qualifier, but the best player in fide circiut, who ist not qualified by World Cup und grand swiss or is not Nepo or Ding.

And the same about Grand swiss, not the best two players from Gradn swiss, but the best players, who are not qulified by World Cup or Nepo or Ding. Future-Trunks (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Alireza Firouzja "not qualified or excluded"?

Why is Alireza Firouzja "the highest-rated player not qualified or excluded from the Candidates Tournament"? What does this mean? --KnightMove (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I added a "next" (which was missing), is the sentence still unclear? Banedon (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Now I get the message, but it is still a bit confusing. I try another wording. --KnightMove (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Links for page about FIDE Circuit

Should be there any links for non-existent page about FIDE Circuit? And if yes, and this page is supposed to be created, what kind of information should it have? Description of system, eligible tournaments, leaderboard and etc.? Селезняк (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Magnus statement about other World Cup Quarter Finalists qualifying

The quote is accurate, but I don't think Magnus can just gift this to the likely 4th place finisher. The situation of someone declining a position is not explicitly covered in the rules. It is more likely that the qualification by rating would be chosen by FIDE. ChessFan2799 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

... actually took another look through the rules. Does anyone think the "reserves" clause would be in effect? ChessFan2799 (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed confirmed by the rules (and also Magnus' interview). Double sharp (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

According to FIDE, the 1st reserve is World Cup 4th place. However, Magnus said the he would not play only in the current format (classical double round-robin). The format for the 2024 Candidates has not yet been announced. I suggest we include all the semifinalists as qualified once (and if) the format is announced by FIDE to remain the same. A3811 (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the FIDE website already states that the 2024 Candidates is an 8-player double round-robin (all-play-all twice), i.e. it is the same format as usual. Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow I missed that, thank you. Should we then add the semifinalists as Candidates or wait for the official announcment that the Candidates will be classical (I'm sure it will be, but I don't think that's bee announced yet?) A3811 (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Being a (non-tie-break) phase in the qualification for the Classical WCC, I personally think it's sufficiently obvious that the Candidates will be classical. That said, the precise situation still depends on the final two rounds of the World Cup: it is always possible that Magnus comes 4th (although granted, not the likeliest scenario), and in that case it would probably be the ratings spot that he vacates, rather than one of the World Cup spots. So I'd prefer to wait a few days until the semifinals or finals (depending on the outcome of Carlsen–Abasov), and leave the detailed description of the situation in the text till then. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, now it's clear Magnus will be either 1st or 2nd. So we now correctly have him as qualifying by the World Cup, and then withdrawing. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

But note this: In Grand Swiss, there qualifie not the best two player, but the best two, who are not qualified at the beginning of the grand swiss. If, for example, pragg will be 4th in the world cup and 1st in Grand swiss, he will be qualified by Grand swiss. And if Carlsen than withdrawels the reserve is not the 4th from World cup, but a player by rating. So we did not know which Players will be qualified by world cup and who is reserve, even if we know Carlsen will be wihdraw. Same thing with Fide circle.

All these important informations about qualification mode stood in the article, but was deleted. Future-Trunks (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point! I didn't realize it matters when Magnus withdraws. (If he never sign his participation, when is he considered 'withdrawn'?) Now looking like Caruana will be 4th, and he's leading the Circuit, so as you say, last Candidate will likely be another rating qualifier instead of 2nd in Circuit. It would be great if you could please add your comments in the article again. Thanks A3811 (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought it through again, and it might be unnecessary. All other semifinalists will qualify by World Cup, or other path if they win it, in which case we can move them.

But anyway top 4 are confirmed in Candidates, they just might qualify by different path A3811 (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, the regulations for the Candidates were released today. Double sharp (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Editing Scores of Matches

Lets just make sure that we're civilized about this, and that if notice that the scores aren't edited, then do it nicely.

Only change someone else's work if its misleading or wrong TheMiniWeapon (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's wrong to put Abasov's score in red because if he won all four remaining games he could win by tiebreak if all other players score 7/14, which is possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorsince99 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it's actually impossible. If Abasov scores 4/4 in the remaining rounds to reach 7/14, then he has to defeat Firouzja along the way, so Firouzja can end with at most 6.5/14. Therefore somebody else would have to exceed 7/14 in this scenario and Abasov still doesn't tie for first. (That argument was pointed out by luna_sparkle on Reddit.) Double sharp (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I have added this as a note on the table.

There was also this alternate explanation by IP 71.244.109.194 in the edit summaries.

i just wanted to point out that there is an easier way to prove Abasov was eliminated. the top five players had 8 remaining games between themselves which meant that one player was guranteed to reach 7.5. Since Abasov was at 3 with 4 rounds left (7.0 max) this eliminated him.

I do not have a preference between one or the other, but think a note is helpful here Soni (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I forgot the number, it was 7 games between the top 5 players but the original math/conclusion was correct. One of the top five players was guaranteed to hit 7.5 after the 9th round 71.244.109.194 (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed the red color from Pragg after Round 12 because it's still possible for him to finish in a 4-way (or 5-way) tie at 2. Dvd Avins (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not possible, as was pointed out by the IP who reverted your edit. To paraphrase the IP's argument: if 2 is enough to win, then Nakamura and Nepomniachtchi have to draw in round 13 and stay at 3 (or else the winner gets 4 and Praggnanandhaa can't catch up), and then they must both lose in round 14 to go down to 2. But that involves Nakamura losing to Gukesh in round 14, so even if Gukesh loses to Firouzja in round 13, Gukesh still ends the tournament at 3 and is ahead of Praggnanandhaa. Double sharp (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

In support of this, At least 1 player will hit 8.5:

There are 3 games left between the top 4 players and they are collectively only 2.5 pts away from forcing someone to hit 8.5, and 3.0 pts left to give (from the 3 games remaining between them) leaves at least 1 player at 8.5. 71.244.109.194 (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Opening designations

Just a suggestion about the source for the opening designations: the ones provided by TWIC only match to the exact move order and don't account for any transpositions -- today's game of Pragg vs. Gukesh, for instance, started off as a "Queen's Gambit Declined, no Nc3" until it became a Catalan... until Nc3 came shortly after and it transposed into a g3 Nimzo-Indian line. Any other sources (lichess database?) that are more dynamic in designating the opening? Jcbdwsn (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there are articles you can find that give names to various openings, but sourcing each individual games seems kinda unnecessary. Sure, you could call Pragg-Gukesh a Catalan or a Nimzo, but QGD isn't wrong, and there isn't much need to name Hikaru's goofy 5...e5 Sicilian. So unless we can find a website very similar to Week in Chess that gives slightly more detailed opening names, I'd say it's fine to keep as is. My only suggestion is to remove "(without Nc3)" from Pragg-Gukesh, as it's not super helpful unless you know that means 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3. Nojus R (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

There is good ol' chessgames.com. It calls Fabi-Naka "Venice Attack", though it describes Fabi-Abasov as just "Sicilian", and isn't any more descriptive about Pragg-Gukesh. Nojus R (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

chessgames.com is often more descriptive I think -- it might be worth switching to this considering that it could improve the designations for future games?? Jcbdwsn (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

rankings are inconsistent

In the two tables, at the end of Round 6, why are Gugesh and Nepo shown in rank 1-2 (despite having different tie breaks), but Caruana shown as 3 and Pragg 4, although they have equal scores? We should be consistent: either use tie breaks everywhere (rank 1, 2, 3, 4 etc) or not use them at all (rank 1-2 and 3-4). And I propose the latter (not use them), to be consistent with the official site [1] and also chess.com [2]. Adpete (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Adpete: The logic might have been that at the end of the tournament, ties involving the first place would be broken by further quick games, whereas that wouldn't be so for ties further down the list. But if so, this is a strange distinction to make when the tournament is not yet over. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh right. I misread that part of the regulations; it does make sense then. I still slightly prefer showing places as tied, and I see that is how it now reads (after round 7), but I don't really care either way now. Adpete (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. If we are using tiebreaks, those tiebreak metrics should be shown on the side of the table, or we list them as 2-3 etc, not 2,3 Soni (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Wrong opening in game 7

In the section called "Results by round" there's an error where game 7 between Alireza Firouzja and Gukesh is labeled as DA45 Trompowsky Attack when it is in fact either Indian Defence or a London System. Please consider inputting the correct openings. 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:31A7:B81A:C98C:AD68 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct. Unfortunately, the source (TWIC) is also wrong, and the error is merely copied from there. Honestly, I think we should just use lichess for the openings consistently. Double sharp (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the openings to follow lichess. Yes, the names are particularly long and precise, but at least they are accurate and don't call Bf4 systems Trompowsky Attacks. There's some argument for editorially shortening them (e.g. changing "Sicilian Defense: Nyezhmetdinov–Rossolimo Attack" to "Sicilian Rossolimo"), but I think the most important thing is to have it be correct. Double sharp (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

In response to SpyroeBM's revert and edit summary comments:

1. Lichess openings can be accessed without an account. Just go to the game page, go to move 10–15 or so (by the time the variation should have settled down) and click on the book icon.
2. And even if they couldn't, there was never any requirement that a source be freely accessible. Otherwise, how could one ever reference books and journal articles?
3. For all that TWIC gives convenient summaries, listing Bf4 systems as Trompowsky Attacks is just wrong, plain and simple. Whether such openings should be called A45 or D02 doesn't really matter, but a Trompowsky implies Bg5, which wasn't played. As I said, there's indeed some argument for editorially shortening them, and I'm open to deciding how to do so. But first and foremost, the openings we list should be correct. Double sharp (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to shorten the opening names from Lichess. This way, at least it's both correct and short. Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

In response to Double sharp's comments

1. What I meant by accessible (should have said easily, not freely) is that the information is present without having to go through extra steps to find the openings (which you don't have to go through on TWIC and chessgames.com), the link you used for the hatnote doesn't work (I tried it on my phone and laptop, but maybe others can see if it works for them), and you telling me that I have to click on each individual game and go 10-15 moves in and find the openings is frankly ridiculous. Hence why I said it's unsuitable, as Lichess doesn't have a list of sources played for each game, so technically you would have to source every single game played in the Candidates so far to get the openings you just put down in that section. Lichess' openings has to be accessed on the "broadcasts" page (an engine is not a static and written source), TWIC and chessgames.com are WRITTEN TEXT SOURCES.
2. Fair enough, the wording was poor on my end, but hopefully the above point gives a proper explanation.
3. The Trompowsky Attack thing is a fair point, A45 as an ECO code was labelled as Trompowsky on TWIC, Queen's Pawn Game on chessgames, and Indian Game on Lichess (allegedly, because for me to find that out I have to go through 3 more steps). TWIC is sometimes prone to confusion like this, but it was used as a source for the previous Candidates and this year's one as it contains the full list of games, results, scores and openings of the Candidates, all in one page. Lichess doesn't do this, so it's hard to verify in physical form (like TWIC and chessgames.com) what the openings are hence why I am against using chess wesbites (i.e. chess.com and lichess), and you telling me (not in verbatim) "I checked every single game trust me bro..." isn't much for me to go on, as I am taking your word for it which isn't a WRITTEN source.
4. Clearly you're just trying to save face about the "shorten openings" points, as I told you and a bunch of editors several times about it yet you ignored it for some reason, so I'm not inclined to believe that you're genuinely trying. However, I'll bite the bait and explain it to you again; there is no point in you putting the verbose wording for the openings, as your example ("Sicilian Defense: Nyezhmetdinov–Rossolimo Attack" to "Sicilian Rossolimo") where both phrases are the SAME THING. Another example being "Ruy Lopez: Morphy Defense, Anderssen Variation", the "Ruy Lopez Anderssen" is literally the same thing again, there's no point including the Morphy's Defense part as the Anderssen Variation of the Ruy Lopez is the final and specific variation of the opening. One of the most egregious ones is "Italian Game: Classical Variation, Giuoco Pianissimo", where simply Giuoco Pianissimo is used, with the Wikipedia links helping link to that specific opening in itself.
5. A continuation of the above point, by putting the verbose wording of the openings, it makes the formatting and wording a lot longer than it needs to be, and once again a general reader the "Sicilian Defense: Taimanov Variation, Bastrikov Variation" is too specific and redundant. Look at the previous Candidates tournament regarding the openings, it is shortened so that the size of the table isn't too stretched. Better yet, have a look at the openings format used at the World Chess Championship games on Wikipedia.

TLDR: Lichess isn't a suitable source, as you are using the engine analysis to find the openings (which isn't a static, written and recorded source compared to TWIC and chessgames.com), hence it will be reverted to chessgames.com as 1. Your link in the hatnote doesn't work and 2. You just admitted that a reader would have to go through each game via engine analysis 10-15 moves in, for every 32 games played in the Candidates to find the openings for each one (which is unsourcable). An ideal solution (pointed out by Jcbdwsn) is that chessgames.com be used, as the openings are more accurate than TWIC and way more accurate than Lichess, as I can source the opening of a game (e.g. Pragg vs. Firouzja - Round 8 - Opening: Sicilian Taimanov (I am aware that it says, Sicilian Defence, Paulsen, Bastrikov Variation, but the Sicilian Taimanov and Bastrikov Variation is the same thing and Wikipedia has it listed simply as the Taimanov Variation) - Link: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2690630). Also it sources the "Trompowsky Game" as the Indian Game (Link: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2690300), so hopefully that answers your problems. SpyroeBM (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I second using chessgames.com.Nojus R (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Chessgames.com works for me too.

I still don't really see the difference between sourcing openings to the Lichess opening choices and sourcing, say, spectral lines to the NIST Atomic Spectra Database (where the info is not all on one page either; you have to query it). I'd consider at least the latter to be absolutely normal. As for not shortening, I was concerned that shortening the names would get me reverted on the grounds that it's then not exactly what the source said. But since we seem to have arrived at a solution we all can agree on, I'll leave it at that. Double sharp (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The difference between sourcing Lichess and chessgames.com, is the former isn't a written and static source. You have to first go to the broadcast page on Lichess, then choose the game (e.g. Vidit vs. Nakamura), then click through 10-15 moves and finally click the book icon to find the openings, which isn't sourcible as if I copy that link and put it on another tab, it will only show me the start position of the game and you would have to do that process all over again. A source shouldn't be interactive, which chessgames.com isn't as the link's used for sourcing leads you to the information of the game, with the opening showcased on top of the board (albeit, you would have to switch to the desktop version if you are looking on mobile). Don't know how the NIST Atomic Spectra Database relates at all to this discussion, and the comparison isn't valid due to the reasons mention above. But glad a solution has been formed. SpyroeBM (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Gukesh in qualification table

The current table presents Gukesh D as "The winner of the 2023 FIDE Circuit". He wasn't, he was second. He got the Candidates spot because the winner was already qualified from a previous tournament. It's similar to Abasov qualifying because Carlsen withdrew, so I added it to the table in the same format. That was reverted by User:Nojus R with the comment "not helpful and not based on precident". I don't understand either part - removing an error should be helpful, and it is with precedent - it follows the same pattern used for the Chess World Cup. Yes, there is a footnote explaining the situation but it's weird that this footnote completely reverses what the table claims. More opinions would be useful. --mfb (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mfb: I agree with you: the article should not include false statements. I suppose it lacks precedent in a silly way (since this is the first cycle where a FIDE Circuit exists), but I rather agree with your interpretation of the World Cup as a precedent. Double sharp (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

What I mean by "not based on precident" is that we've never done such a thing with the winner having already qualified. The difference is Magnus qualified via the World Cup, then decided to withdraw. Caruana didn't qualify via the circuit, so saying Gukesh is the "replacement for Caruana" is false. He didn't replace anyone, Fabi was simply removed from the circuit spot race when he qualified via World Cup. If you really want to do something, simply write "highest place in FIDE circuit not already qualified" or something (and we already have a note anyways). Are we gonna write "Carlsen (already qualified)" "Caruana (already qualified)" "Nakamura (already qualified)" in the rating spot, too? Nojus R (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nojus R: Fair point about the rating spot; I was simply concerned that the article looked like it's saying something false. Thanks for the wording "highest place in FIDE circuit not already qualified", which I wish I'd thought of. :) Changed it to that. Double sharp (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"highest place in FIDE circuit not already qualified" sounds good. Instead of "replacement for Caruana" we could write "after Caruana" or simply just "runner-up". --mfb (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to "after Caruana". Double sharp (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

What does "on tilt" mean?

Even after reading Tilt (poker), I am not sure what the sentence "GM Daniel King suggested afterwards that Firouzja might be on tilt" means. Could a clearer explanation be written? I think slang should be avoided, especially when it's not in Glossary_of_chess. Adpete (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

King suggested that because Firouzja was having such a bad tournament, he was in a state of frustration and anger, and as such would play poorly in the upcoming rounds. Weirdly Glossary_of_poker_terms#tilt kinda describes it better than the actual article. Any suggestions on how to reword it? Nojus R (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not put what you just wrote? That is much clearer! Adpete (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't really understand the need for the reference to poker, tilt is a very common term in chess context. You'll very often hear chess players say "(someone)'s on tilt" to explain an exceptionally bad or below par performance. It basically means a player is playing significantly worse than their usual level, usually because of prior frustrating results. It should also be included in the glossary of chess. A definition I found on Google: "a state of emotional frustration and anxiety that can occur during or after a game. It often results from a player's inability to control their emotions and reactions to events during the game, such as losing a winning position or making a critical blunder." (This source also makes the reference to poker tilt, which again I don't see the relevance of). 9ninety (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reframed this as "on tilt" in quotes, assuming this is something King actually said, since it's a bit of a slang term anyway and not something to say in Wikipedia voice. That said, the chess tilting isn't related to poker so also removed the extraneous line and link explainjng what it means. It should be clear enough hopefully.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Then I think you should find, or create, a link to a better explanation. Because both Tilt (poker) and Glossary_of_poker_terms#tilt refer to a player adopting a less than optimal strategy, and given that "strategy" has a particular meaning in chess, I don't think that it is an accurate description of Firouzja's play. Better still, remove the comment entirely, and link to a commentator who is giving a better description of Firouzja's poor performance. Adpete (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It's all the same thing whenever "tilt" is used in the context of games that test mental capacity. Someone's emotional state has been compromised making them unable to make decisions as good as their usual self. The "strategy" thing is irrelevant, as a poker player on tilt does not adopt a suboptimal or aggressive strategy with calculation and deliberation, it's just their frustration causing them to make poor decisions. A poker player thinks they'll get lucky in a particular hand because they're due even if that is probablistically unlikely, so does a chess player think they'll play a brilliant game this time because they have the ability and they're due one even if recent results suggest they are not playing at a 100% and are therefore unlikely to pull off a miracle win. Consider wikt:tilt#English, noun, #8. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I was just going to say it's not in the dictionary, e.g. Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, so a link to some sort of explanation is essential. At least you have show it is in Wiktionary, I concede, so that link could be used. Adpete (talk)

References

Better wording required

The article reads "with Nakamura, Caruana and Nepomniachtchi all needing a win to advance to tie-breaks if Gukesh drew his game" which doesn't make sense since Nakamura played Gukesh so he couldn't win if Gukesh drew his game, and he also wouldn't necessarily have to go to tiebreaks had he won unlike Caruana and Nepomniachtchi, who have to go to tiebreaks, with either Gukesh or Nakamura (unless if Gukesh won), if either of them won. So this statement isn't really worded properly, and ignores the actual pairings and scenarios. 9ninety (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Clarification requested [why?]

We say "After the game, Nepomniachtchi apologized to Caruana,[why?] with Caruana responding "my fault".[59] Regarding the [why?]: I think I understand why Nepominiachtchi apologized, having read MANY comments in a video, but can we use this as a source? Should we remove the [why?]? For background or discussion, the consensus from the comments I read is that Ian was not apologizing for his play but expressing empathy for Caruana's situation. Ian had played poorly but Caruana had more than once failed to convert. The outcome was that neither earned a tie-breaker against the eventual winner. Some commentators suggested that as both Nepomniachtchi and Caruana were in must-win situations, Nepomniachtchi should have considered resigning, while others say that would have lacked integrity. But my question is, what source can we use to respond to [why?]? Hayttom (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I would lean towards getting rid of the whole sentence. We're trying to suss out a private conversation based on a YouTube video? Why? Hardly seems like encyclopedic content. If a legitimate source reported on it, then that could be cited. Otherwise.. nah --SubSeven (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've chopped the whole sentence out. This is my boldest edit ever. I will be interested in any further discussion. Hayttom (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)