Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Interactive chess board

Magnus Carlsen has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Until now, this page redirected to just chess. But in common chess parlance, the term "classical chess" usually refers to long time controls, the opposite of fast chess, which has a dedicated article. After some deliberation, I've retargeted it to {{slink|glossary of chess#classical}}, which is a bit more appropriate, but should this be its own article? The history of classical chess is currently not adequately covered anywhere on Wikipedia. 9ninety (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:To me "classical chess" is just "chess". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Classical chess specifically refers to slow or "standard" chess, as opposed to rapid or blitz. And it's becoming an increasingly relevant term nowadays as we frequently hear top players saying they're not motivated to play classical and that rapid or freestyle is the future.

::Wiktionary defines classical chess as "Chess played at a slow time control, with games taking up to several hours". [https://www.chess.com/terms/classical-chess Chess.com] also gives a similar definition. 9ninety (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Max knows all that, but possibly has the same puzzlement about your claim that I have. You say, "The history of classical chess is currently not adequately covered anywhere on Wikipedia." Say what?? Every wikipedia page about chess history is a page about the history of classical chess. And my library has a few books about chess history but no books about "the history of classical chess", so you are talking about a research topic that doesn't exist. In chess scholarship, "classical" is more likely attached to a style, era, or school, in contrast to Romantic and Hypermodern (School of chess#Classical school). All that said, anyone is free to change the :classical chess redirect into an article. I'm not opposed to that, I would just suggest that such an article should not duplicate too much currently at :chess and warn that anyone trying to remove material currently at "chess" to spin it out to "classical chess" will meet strong opposition from me. Quale (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this looks like a worthy article, but we need to get some sources together to demonstrate notability. Certainly many world class GMs participated in the event between 1954 and 1977. Kazic's "International Championship Chess" (1972) is a solid source but dated (it only covers events up to 1972), while Olimpbase faces the self-published objection, though we have found it to be reliable and useful over the years. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:It seems most of those events had a tournament book of some sort, usually written by Jaroslav Sajtar. [https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?ds=20&kn=student%20chess%20championship&ref=ds_ac_d_26&sts=t] They were organized by the International Union of Students, independently at first and then in conjunction with FIDE. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::Another possible source is Kenneth Harkness's Official Chess Handbook (1967), which covers the events from 1954 to 1966. Any other source suggestions are welcome. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::[https://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/CL-AND-CR-ALL/CL-ALL/1960/1960_08_2.pdf Here] is a link to an article about the 1960 World Student Team, from Chess Life. I will post more about it in the talk page of the draft article. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:List of chess openings has always been bad, but can it be redeemed? I would have nominated the list for deletion years ago if I thought there was any realistic chance it could be deep sixed to put it and us out of misery. I think Max has expressed concerns about this page as well. Quale (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at both the edit history and the talk page, I guess it has gone through several stages. The present stage looks too unwieldy, not to mention unsourced. But was there an earlier stage when it was more plausible than it is now?

:I might also ask: since Wikipedia has its own ideas of what a "List" article should look like, is it possible to fit the chess openings into that model? Bruce leverett (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::The question of what the list should be is interesting. My personal inclination would be to have a much leaner list, something along the lines of https://www.365chess.com/eco.php, but this might be pointlessly redundant to :Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings. I can also understand why some people would prefer a more comprehensive list, even including the goofy stuff. The list :lichess uses is as far as I as am willing to go: https://github.com/lichess-org/chess-openings. I have qualms about creating such a list based on a single source, but since lichess is kind enough to make their data available in machine-readable formats, it would only require a few tens of lines of Python to spit out :H:WIKITEXT that we could paste directly into the article. Quale (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Another possible format would be [https://www.chessgames.com/chessecohelp.html this], with one line per ECO code. This article used to have a format like that (for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_chess_openings&oldid=76314390 this version] which is from 2006), but editors weren't content with it. Since this is Wikipedia, editor want to link from this article to our own articles about openings; but this often leads to two or more links from one ECO code. On the other hand some ECO codes don't have any links; these include some very popular variations, such as "symmetrical English". So the ECO codes aren't perfect as a framework for creating a Wikipedia list of openings, but they are quite a lot better than nothing; I have often consulted the chessgames.com list to look things up.

:::The present version of the article bears a superficial resemblance to the Index of Named Openings and Variations in the back pages of The Oxford Companion to Chess. But for every entry in that list, there is an article in the book, however short, that refers to it. At least I think there is, based on my sampling of the list; there aren't "links" (page numbers) back to the articles, but it's easy to find them, since it's all in alphabetical order. I think that for the present format to be encyclopedic, we could not give a name for any variation or any opening unless we mentioned that variation or opening by name in some openings article. Moreover, all those mentions should have anchors, so that we could link back to them from this article. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_chess_openings&oldid=337732 This version] is better than what we have now. We could use something like that and retitle it to something like "list of chess openings by ECO code". We could still mention the more important sublines within ECO codes, but we need to lose all those stupid meme opening names. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::My attention was drawn to the article again recently by the number and scale of the changes being made to the article by an anon editor. My initial impulse was to revert, but at least the anon editor is trying to improve the list which is more than I have ever done for it. The current form of the changes isn't going to fly because the extensive use of preformatted sections is a no-no. It could be reformatted to meet expected enwiki standards, but I think the big motivation for the anon editor is to format it just so, despite the fact that that formatting won't stand here. Quale (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I would be happy to start an argument with the anon editor on the talk page. I would raise two issues:

::::::* unsourced opening names, esp. "meme openings";

::::::* extensive use of preformatted sections. What is "chapter and verse" for this (save me the trouble of looking for it).

::::::I appreciate that the anon editor cares about this article, so I don't plan to get deeply involved, but offering some advice on the talk page is a normal Wikipedia reaction. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks, those are good instincts. Of course the ultimate reference on style and formatting is :WP:MOS, but abandon all hope if you expect to absorb it in toto. The Manual of Style is a vast labyrinth of pages and I find it impossible to do more than pick up some basics and then possibly try to look up specific points when needed. I don't know that MOS specifically addresses use of HTML

 tags although there is a prescription to use wiki markup instead of HTML. :MOS:LIST is the specific style guideline on lists. Quale (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The Erik Kislik article that got PRODed has more merit than the William Graif one which recently got accepted, after being rejected 2 years ago. MaxBrowne2 (talk) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think that the references are a load of fluff. The uschess.org reference is a blurb advertising a podcast. The mention by Bryan Smith in chess dot com is just a passing reference. I googled his book, and found some blogs where somebody liked it, but no serious reviews. I would still say this is uncontroversial. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::That one is at least debatable, as opposed to the connect 4 master. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The articles to create section on WP:CHESS says "We need to cover Chess World Cup 1982, held in Hamburg and televised". I looked for some sources and was able to find some YouTube videos of the event, but can't find much info. Does anyone know any good sources detailing this event? 9ninety (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Presumably :British Chess Magazine would have had some coverage. :Chess Life archives are a possible source, https://new.uschess.org/chess-life-digital-archives. Unfortunately 1982 predates start of :The Week in Chess.

:I didn't find anything definitive. Google's search AI says that the 1982 World Cup was actually the three Interzonals in 1982 (Las Palmas, Moscow, and Tulaca), but I don't know if that's correct. We have crosstables in :World Chess Championship 1984–1985. Mark Weeks has useful resources on the world championships, but I didn't find anything on https://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/wcc-indx.htm to confirm or refute the idea that the Interzonals were a World Cup.

:Maybe the Hamburg TV event(s) were called the World Cup. On these crosstables at 365chess.com the events are called [https://www.365chess.com/tournaments/Hamburg_TV-A_1982/22366 Hamburg TV-A] and [https://www.365chess.com/tournaments/Hamburg_TV-B_1982/22367 Hamburg TV-B]. Quale (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::The Interzonals were not the World Cup. In [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmx_W3oI7YE this] video of a TV broadcast of the event, the presenter/commentator announces it as the Chess World Cup and indeed mentions two groups A and B, which aligns with 365chess. At 1:45 in the video, you can see the playing hall and it says "TV World Cup Chess 1982" on the wall in English, and the FIDE logo is visible. It seems that the group winners Karpov and Spassky played a final which went to a playoff; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5p6RxnPwKI here's] a broadcast of the same. It seems the event was played in September 1982, but I can't find more precise dates. The games are available on chessgames (e.g. [https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1041481][https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068273]) but with no tournament overview.

::Do we have sufficient information and sources to create an article? 9ninety (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't know. The participants make the event notable, so as you point out, sources are the only question. German newspaper archives would probably be helpful and I'm sure there's someone around who can read German. I had hoped there might be an article at de.wikipedia.org, but if there is I couldn't find it. Someone who knows German might have more success with the German wikipedia as well. We could look in the articles of the participants. I see a one-line mention in Boris Spassky#Later tournament career (after 1976) which cites a book by Karpov. That suggests something else, we could examine biographies of the participants. I know John Nunn has written about his career. Quale (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:[https://archive.org/details/schachtvworldcup00pfle Here] you go! Cobblet (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Cobblet has the best answer.

::Nunn seems to be a dead end as he doesn't mention Hamburg in Grandmaster Chess, the book in which describes his chess career from 1975 to 1984. He is a fun writer though, and although my fellow chess editors will (quite correctly) disagree, I want to find a way to get his description of the 1983 European Team Championship into wikipedia. On page 279, Nunn writes: "The Final of the European Team Championship took place in :Plovdiv, Bulgaria during June. The hotel and playing conditions were very good, but the food was not. To me it seemed to consist entirely of :cucumbers; meals would start with :cucumber soup, continue with some kind of cucumber and end with cucumber soufflé (OK, the last is an exaggeration). I haven't been able to eat a cucumber since. After a week of this :Jonathan Mestel declared that he would accept a one in a million chance of instant death in return for an :avocado." Quale (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Over the years I've tried to help keep :WP:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess articles up to date by adding newly created articles from time to time. I had made a few small additions and corrections in 2024 and 2025, but I hadn't done a comprehensive search for missing article links since 2023. In April, when I tried to get the index caught up I found that it was quite a lot of work and I didn't enjoy it. I use this :Help:Public watchlist all the time so I want to keep it up to date, but I also want to expend a lot less toil maintaining it. I got completely burned out making [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Chess%2FIndex_of_chess_articles&diff=1292182999&oldid=1285045749 around 500 additions, renames, and sorting corrections] to the chess articles index over 2 weeks in April and May and I think I'm done trying to maintain that index by hand.

The problem of finding new chess articles that are not on the watch list is mechanizable without too much effort, but the drudgery is in integrating the new articles into :Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess articles. The page is divided into many sections, so adding links to new articles requires finding the correct section and carefully inserting the links in the correct alphabetical spot. This is just a lot of mostly pointless work. Finding the section is harder than it should be because :Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess_articles#Tournaments & competitions articles is partitioned into a ridiculous number of overlapping subsections. There is no difficulty finding the appropriate section for chess biographies, but sorting names can be difficult, especially when you must account for Eastern name order and long Spanish names. There are also several reasonable sorting systems for names and it isn't clear which one this page should use. (To be fair, it probably doesn't make much difference.) Even sorting regular article titles is a bit of a bother, as sometimes we have ignored small common leading words such as "A" and "The" and other times we haven't.

The easy way to maintain the list is to generate it whole by mechanical means and replace the entire page each time. This could be done by a true bot, but currently I simply use the pywikibot library to recursively scan :Category:chess and its subcategories to find all chess articles, generate the watchlist wikitext by linking all chess articles but omitting redirects, and then copy and paste the text into the watchlist page by hand. It takes a a short Python script little less than 3 minutes to scan 1062 chess categories to find 7628 pages. About 50 of those pages are redirects and are omitted from the watchlist. If the watchlist is generated mechanically and is not intended to be edited by hand then the section structure and order of the links is unimportant. A simple thing that is also easily comprehensible by humans is to sort the article titles as strings. That's what Arvindn did in 20024 when he created [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Index_of_chess_articles&oldid=2954661 the original chess articles list page].

You can see what this might look like at :User:Quale/publicwatchlist. I will probably maintain this or a similar watchlist for my own use, but it could also replace or sit alongside the current :Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess_articles. Would chess editors like this public watchlist (or something similar) at :Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/publicwatchlist? (That's the name that {{tl|public watchlist}} uses by default.) My intent is to update the watchlist by scanning the chess categories once or twice a week.

There are currently 91 articles linked from my public watchlist that are not on the WP:CHESS Index. To be fair, there's a good chance that we might not really want to watch some pages that find their way into chess categories such as :LXXXVIII (album), but there are others that definitely belong including :Belgrade International Women's Grandmaster Chess Tournament. Some are renamed pages like :Women's World Chess Championship 1937 match where the Index is currently watching the redirect at the page's old name. (I'm happy to provide a list of the 91 articles if someone is interesting in adding some or all of them to the Index.) Quale (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chess boxing#Requested move 20 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. FaviFake (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

We've discussed the use of historical rating calculations previously and generally discourage extensive use of unofficial ratings in chess articles. The specific question I am interested in is whether and how we should make use of :Arpad Elo's rating calculations in articles such as :World Chess Championship 1966 and :World Chess Championship 1969.

Starting in 1962, :Arpad Elo periodically published rating lists of international players in :Chess Life. (The Chess Life archives are found at https://new.uschess.org/chess-life-digital-archives. Elo's first two international rating lists were published in August 1962 and April 1964.) These ratings can be cited to reliable sources and are more comparable to the official FIDE ratings since 1972. I think the ratings will be of interest to some readers, and they can convey some information about the relative strength of the players which may be helpful especially since today and in the future fewer people will be familiar with the chess players of the 1960s.

There are some problems. Elo's data was incomplete since he didn't have results for all tournament games. Calculations were performed by hand and reported results are averages over 3-year periods rounded to the tens position. (At the start the official lists would round to the nearest 5, and eventually ratings were computed to the nearest integer.) I think if we are going to use these numbers then we have to explain them and how they are different than modern FIDE ratings.

Elo's ratings were recently added to a crosstable in :World Chess Championship 1966, as was TPR. TPR is very ahistorical here, but again some readers might find it of interest. In :World Chess Championship 1969 the ratings are found only in the {{tl|Infobox chess match}} where I think they are actually less prominent and less worrisome. What do chess editors think? Quale (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Generally speaking, the use of ratings in any context in an encyclopedia for the general public is problematic. Non-chess-playing readers are not familiar with the rating system, and in many cases do not even know what it is or know that it exists. Our sources outside the chess literature, sources such as the New York Times and the Hindustan Times, very seldom mention ratings.

:To make a reference to ratings comprehensible to a non-chess-playing reader, we usually have to supply a great deal of context and explanation; links to articles about ratings, such as Elo rating, are no substitute for actual English-language explanation. Of course, we never follow this practice, and so many of our articles about chess, particularly biographies and tournament reports, have these incomprehensible bits. List of chess players by peak FIDE rating is incomprehensible from alpha to omega.

:Incomprehensibility is a problem for "official" ratings just as much as for "unofficial" ratings. I'll talk about "official" versus "unofficial" separately.

:What tempts editors to mention ratings in Wikipedia articles? I think it's because many of our most active chess editors are themselves chess players. Indeed, if you have experience in rated chess, it gives you a perspective that is useful for editing Wikipedia articles about chess. But you have to remember that our readers do not, on the whole, share this perspective. Another thing that leads us to sometimes mention ratings where we should not, is that we often make use of sources that are not outside the chess literature: magazines such as Chess Life, books such biographies of chess players or whatever one might find in the book sales room at a large tournament. Of course these sources are not shy about mentioning ratings.

:The chess player's perspective sometimes causes editors to mistake a high rating for something notable. The fact that Kasparov was the world's "number one" player for many years, or the fact that Carlsen has struggled to hit 2900, or that Fischer greatly outrated Spassky even before their match -- these are well-known to many of our chess editors, and so they seem terribly notable, but in the non-chess literature, they barely register. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello there, i think that 1964 rating should be added because of this

:- The calculation for the first Fide rating was made from his unofficial list from 1967,1968 and 1969. These list were made in the uscf, his data was even smaller than the 1964 list for the initialisation of the rating of 1970. He added more player in 1969. the list of 1970 was made in July , he used his method for rating unrated player precised in his book at section 3.3, that's how he could add an astronomical number of rating comapred to the meer 101 for 1964 et 95 for 1967.

:- The TPR was calculated through his method explained in his book "The rating of past and present chessplayers" in his section 3.3. an TPR can't be considered historical or ahistorical, it's an statistic information. We could use them everywhere, but i should talk with you all before doing that. It's seems strange that they're low, because today's rating are far higher than before, it's seems than it has gone up since 1986, so if we need to explain that they're are different, we need to do for all of them. The Tpr of Karpov in the world championship in 1978 was 2684, which is a bit higher than spassky in the 1964 interzonal at amsterdam.

:The choice from this perspective seems logical, the unofficial from elo's rating were used for the first official one thus making it in some shape or form more official than any other unofficial rating. So i think we should use them Deniz of givet (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::* I think that the 1962 rating list shouldnt be used because it's kinda strange, the forumla use wasn't the same and the method i think of the idea of iterative wasn't the same. The coefficient isnt the same either i guess. Botvinnik in 1962 being 2736 seems not being on the same scale as the petrossian (2690) of 1964. Also the fischer rating of 2713 in 1962 and 2690 in 1964 is conflicting. The 1964 rating is right according to Elo's book while fischer rating in 1962 should be arround 2660 or 2670

::Deniz of givet (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Ratings are actually a fairly recent thing in the context of 500+ years of chess history. The Soviets did perfectly well without them, categorizing players as Grandmasters, Masters, Candidate Masters, 1st category players etc by comparing their performance with other players with the same titles (and occasionally revoking titles when players couldn't maintain that level of performance). Ratings have become something of an obsession for modern players. I'm not keen on any pre-1970 tournament table including an "unofficial rating", let alone a "TPR". We could maybe cite Elo's pre-tournament calculations to Chess Life as a RS and say who the pre-tournament favourites were based on that, but even then I'm not sure how relevant that is to the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Your argument can be countered by this

::::Chess rating were invented by national federation, there was the BCF rating, the Ingo rating etc

::::The first international tournament is London 1851, so rating were made less than a 100 year after that chess had an international scene.

::::And if soviet did perfectly without them, it doesnt mean you cant do perfectly with them ?

::::It's not an obssesion of todays chess players, you can check the work of richard clarke and you can clearly see that's not modern obsession. As i said, TPR is an statistical information, how you can be for or against this, it's pure information. Also concerning unofficial , as i said in my message above, this unofficial list by arpad elo were used for fide rating because Arpad Elo was doing the first fide rating list. If official is based on unofficial, then we could use unofficial since it was used by official list. Deniz of givet (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Here is a better citation of the 1964 rating list Elo published in Chess Life.{{cite magazine |magazine=Chess Life |author=Arpad E. Elo |title=The Second International Rating List and the Historical Ratings |date=April 1964 |volume=XIX |number=4 |pages=81-83 |url=https://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/CL-AND-CR-ALL/CL-ALL/1964/1964_04.pdf}}. It links to the USCF Digital Archive, which can be found at [https://new.uschess.org/chess-life-digital-archives US Chess.org]. You don't have to register or sign in to access it.

:::I had forgotten about these rating lists although I subscribed to Chess Life starting in 1965. They are of historical interest in the development of rating systems, and we ought to be mentioning them in Elo rating system#History.

:::However, I do not think we should cite these rating lists in our articles about the 1966 or 1969 world championships. They had no official standing at the time. Neither in announcements of the interzonal tournaments, nor in reporting of their results, do any ratings appear. Also, they have no official standing today. The appearance of Elo's lists in Chess Life gives them no more official status than is given to ChessMetrics ratings by their appearance in whatever published sources have mentioned them. In De Felice's book of chess results 1964-1967, no ratings are given. The collection of old FIDE rating lists at olimpbase.org does not include Elo's lists from Chess Life.

:::In later years, after FIDE had begun official use of ratings, ratings were used in the calculation of title norms, and Di Felice's crosstables usually include ratings. Our own crosstables of interzonals from later years often include ratings, for example in World Chess Championship 1978. I do not think that rating information from 1976 interzonal crosstables is of any historical value or other use to readers in 2025, but since our sources include it, the path of least resistance may be for us to include it as well.

:::Regarding TPR, as I mentioned in my earlier comment, it is doubtful indeed to give TPR numbers without explaining what a TPR is. Even I, who am an active tournament player, do not know exactly what TPR stands for (" performance rating", I suppose) and how it is calculated. Moreover, Elo's ratings in the 1964 list are "historical" -- what is presented for each player is a "best 5-year average" and (where applicable) a "best 25-year average". Thus these are nothing like the ratings that are used as input to calculation of revised ratings resulting from tournaments and matches; and the concept of a performance rating is cannot be applied. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree a bit for the first part, it's not really used, but it's still calculation that was made during that time, that was used for 1967 and thus indirectly 1970 the first fide rating. Olympbase show chessslife rating of 1967 1968 and 1969. And 1964 rating list is not a 5 year peak average, the 5 year peak average stats are apart from the top 101 players that were calculated with the iterative method which was the method elo used to initialise rating. TPR is tournament performance rating and shows if the player overperformed or underperformed compared to his rating. It's an intersting info since it can tell if he, the player, did a good tournament or not. Deniz of givet (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Based on the [https://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/CL-AND-CR-ALL/CL-ALL/1962/1962_08.pdf 1962 article] it seems Elo's original motivation for calculating ratings for international players was to allow the performances of US players in international tournaments to be included in their domestic USCF ratings. If these were actually applied to USCF ratings (I haven't confirmed that they were) then their status was I suppose "official" within the US context.

:::::That doesn't mean we should be looking at historical tournaments through a modern lens. It was not standard practice to use Elo ratings for international tournaments before 1971, and they were not included in any contemporary reports, so they should not be included in the historical reports or crosstables for these tournaments. That's WP:SYNTH, a form of original research. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)