Talk:London Chess Classic

More links

• http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2009/12/carlsen-wins-london-chess-classic-2009.html
• http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2009/12/london-chess-classic-photographs.html
• http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22916/29/
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/dec/15/london-chess-classic-sport-magnus-carlsen
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/chess/6818853/Wild-win-for-Luke-McShane.html

First one is particularly useful, in that it gathers together lots of other links. Carcharoth (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Prize money

I notice all the prize amounts are given in euros. As this is an article on a UK tournament it might be an idea to have the equivalent in pounds.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

New articles for years?

I suggest that new articles be created for each separate year of the tournament. This way, the basics- what is already here- can stay on this page, while details regarding the individual games, the planning, and other misc, etc. can go on the individual year page. I would love to deal with this task. Legolover26 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Guess that should be ok. Tourneys get enough coverage. -Koppapa (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't do individual year pages for most regularly recurring tournaments except the Olympiads (see Category:chess competitions), but I'm in favor of that idea when we have enough to write about. My opinion is that for now the article is short enough to stay in one piece and that spinning out each edition to a separate article now would be premature and would make the pages less useful. My gut feeling is that if the page would need to be at least twice as long as it is now before considering WP:SPINOUT or WP:SS. Note that the page is currently about 16K and WP:SIZERULE suggests that for < 40K "Length alone does not justifty division". Quale (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Quale. Premature for now and I'm also a little wary of what extra material would be appropriate. Certainly nothing wrong with more photos and/or more detailed description of the events/results; these can all be improved. However, I'm not sure we'd want to head towards a tournament book format with lots of games, game fragments, analysis etc. These things will be covered by the website, the tournament bulletins and in the chess press, so appropriate links/references should suffice. I realise keeping things informative, yet remaining encyclopedic, can be a difficult balancing act at times, but if we continue to discuss here then we can no doubt reach a consensus. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. There was some disagreement in 2012, but this article is now long enough to pull out the detailed results for each tournament into separate articles. Greenman (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Chess Classic. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728121226/http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/london-chess-classic-2009 to http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/london-chess-classic-2009

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) 13:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)