text:
Fireteam

A fireteam or fire team is a small modern military subordinated element of infantry designed to optimize "NCO initiative", "combined arms", "bounding overwatch" and "fire and movement" tactical doctrine in combat. Depending on mission requirements, a typical "standard" fireteam consists of four or fewer members: an automatic rifleman, a grenadier, a rifleman, and a designated fireteam leader. The role of each fireteam leader is to ensure that the fireteam operates as a cohesive unit. Two or three fireteams are organized into a section or squad in co-ordinated operations, which is led by a squad leader.

Historically, militaries with strong reliance and emphasis on decentralized NCO-corp institutions and effective "bottom-up" fireteam organization command structures have had significantly better combat performance from their infantry units in comparison to militaries limited to officer-reliant operations, traditionally larger units lacking NCO-leadership and "top-down" centralized-command structures. Fireteam organization addresses the realities of 21st-century warfare where combat is getting exponentially faster and more lethal as it identifies and removes anything which slows down the reaction time between first detection of an enemy and rounds impacted.

U.S. Army doctrine recognizes the fire team, or crew, as the smallest military organization while NATO doctrine refers to this level of organization simply as team. Fireteams are the most basic organization upon which modern infantry units are built in the British Army, Royal Air Force Regiment, Royal Marines, United States Army, United States Marine Corps, United States Air Force Security Forces, Canadian Forces, and Australian Army.

Concept
The concept of the fireteam is based on the need for tactical flexibility in infantry operations. A fireteam is capable of autonomous operations as part of a larger unit. Successful fireteam employment relies on quality small unit training for soldiers, experience of fireteam members operating together, sufficient communications infrastructure, and a quality non-commissioned officer corps to provide tactical leadership for the team.

These requirements have led to successful use of the fireteam concept by more professional militaries. It is less useful for armies employing massed infantry formations, or with significant conscription. Conscription makes fireteam development difficult, as team members are more effective as they build experience over time working together and building personal bonds.

In combat, while attacking or maneuvering, a fireteam generally spreads over a distance of 50 m, while in defensive positions the team can cover up to the range of its weapons or the limits of visibility, whichever is less. In open terrain, up to 500 m can be covered by an effective team, although detection range limits effectiveness beyond 100 m or so without special equipment. A team is effective so long as its primary weapon remains operational.

Canada
In the Canadian Army, "fireteam" refers to two soldiers paired for fire and movement. Two fireteams form an "assault group", which is analogous to most other militaries' understanding of a fireteam; two assault groups and a vehicle group of one driver and one gunner form a section of ten soldiers.
 * Team leader: An NCO (sergeant if assault group one master corporal if assault group two), carries a C7 rifle.
 * Rifleman: One corporal or private, carries a C7 rifle.
 * Grenadier: One corporal or private, carries a C7 rifle with an M203 grenade launcher.
 * Gunner: One corporal or private, carries a C9 light machine gun.

China
People's Liberation Army forces traditionally used three-man "cells" (equivalent to fireteams) as the smallest military formation and such organization was widely employed throughout the Second Sino-Japanese War, Chinese Civil War, Korean War, Sino-Indian War, Vietnam War as well as Sino-Vietnamese War. It is unofficially named the "three-three organization". （三三制）

In Chinese sources, this tactic is referred to as "three-three fireteams", after the composition of the attack: three men would form one fireteam, and three fireteams one squad. A Chinese platoon, consisting of 50 men, would form three ranks of such fireteams, which would be employed to attack "one point" from "two sides." Each cell carries at least one automatic weapon (In the Korean War, it was submachine guns or light machine guns. In the early to mid-cold war, it was assault rifles or squad automatic weapons), while the rest carried a bolt-action rifle or a semiautomatic rifle so that each "cell" could independently fire and maneuver.

An example of a People's Volunteer Army fireteam in the late Korean War,
 * Squad leader/second in command/party member: Carried a Type 50 SMG, acted as the team leader
 * Rifleman/machine gunner: Carried a Mosin–Nagant rifle or a DP-27 machinegun
 * Rifleman/assistant machine gunner: Carried a Mosin–Nagant rifle

French
The French section (groupe de combat – "combat group") is divided into two teams. The "fire team" (équipe de feu) is based around the section-level automatic rifle or light machine gun. The "shock team" (équipe de choc), made up of riflemen armed with rifle grenades or disposable rocket launchers, is the reconnaissance and maneuver unit. The teams employ bounding overwatch, with one element covering as the other moves. The team leaders have handheld radios so the elements can stay in contact with each other, as well as with the section leader's backpack radio set. The most common symbol of the modern French junior NCO (chef d'équipe) has been a radio hanging around their neck.

United Kingdom
Infantry units of the British Army, Royal Marines and RAF Regiment introduced the fireteam concept following the adoption of the SA80 rifle and light support weapon. An infantry section of eight men contains two fireteams, Charlie and Delta, each comprising an NCO (corporal or lance corporal) and three privates. The fireteam is generally used as a subdivision of the section for fire and maneuver rather than as a separate unit in its own right, although fireteams or fireteam-sized units are often used for reconnaissance tasks, special operations, and urban patrols (usually being to referred to as a "brick" in the latter scenario).
 * Team leader: This NCO carries an L85 rifle with an L123 underslung grenade launcher. Some units vary with one of the privates carrying the grenade launcher rather than the NCO.
 * Rifleman: Two privates carry L85 rifles. Under earlier fireteam organization there also were two riflemen, but the second of these was later substituted with a designated marksman, leaving the section with one rifleman per fireteam. From 2019, the earlier organization was restored and the section commander was given discretion to re-role the section gunner as a third rifleman if needed.
 * Gunner: One private per section carries an L7A2 GPMG. Earlier section organizations had one private per fireteam carrying an L86 light support weapon (intended to replace the L7A2) and then an L110 light machine gun; the L110A3 was removed from service in 2019, with the earlier L7A2 being reinstated as the section machine gun.
 * Designated marksman: One private per section carries an L129A1 sharpshooter rifle. Earlier fireteam organizations had one private per fireteam carrying either an L86A2 light support weapon or an L129A1 depending on availability; the L86A2 was removed from service in 2019, with the L129A1 officially becoming the standard section DMR.

Army
The U.S. Army particularly emphasizes the fireteam concept. Per U.S. Army doctrine a typical fire team consists of four soldiers.

 * Team Leader (TL): Usually either a sergeant or corporal (although occasionally a team is led by a specialist or private first class when the platoon has a shortage of junior NCOs). Provides tactical leadership for the team at all times; standard equipped with backpack GPS/radio set, and either an M16 rifle or M4 carbine.
 * Rifleman (R): Is 'the baseline standard for all infantrymen'. They are equipped with the M16 rifle or M4 carbine. The rifleman is usually assigned with the grenadier to help balance the firepower capabilities of the automatic rifleman.
 * Grenadier rifleman (GR): Provides limited high-angle fire over "dead zones". A grenadier is equipped with an M4 or M16 with an M203 grenade launcher (or the newer M320 grenade launcher) mounted to the weapon.
 * Automatic rifleman (AR): Provides overwatch and suppressive fire through force multiplication. The most casualty-producing person in a fireteam, in terms of firepower and maneuverability when compared to the standard nine-man rifle squad. An automatic rifleman is equipped with an M249 light machine gun. The automatic rifleman is usually assigned with the team leader to maximize directed fields of fire and to help balance the firepower capabilities of the grenadier.

In a stryker brigade combat team's (SBCT) infantry rifle companies, one man in each rifle squad fireteam is either the squad anti-armour specialist (RMAT) armed with an FGM-148 Javelin, or the squad designated marksman (DM) who carries an M4 carbine and M14 rifle. In both cases, these two positions replace the basic rifleman of the standard rifle squad.

Marine Corps
The United States Marine Corps doctrine dictates that any active fireteam will include at least one 2-man gunnery-team and summarizes its fireteam organization with the mnemonic "ready-team-fire-assist", the following being the arrangement of the fireteam when in a column:
 * Rifleman: acts as a scout for the fireteam; "ready".
 * Team leader: uses an M203 and works as the designated grenadier; "team".
 * Designated automatic rifleman: uses an M249 light machine gun or M27 IAR and serves as second in command for the fireteam; "fire".
 * Assistant automatic rifleman: standard rifleman tasked with providing spotting support, range-finding, carries extra LMG ammunition, and offers close-protection should the fireteam fall under attack; "assist".

Navy
Navy construction force, "Seabee" construction battalions, utilize fireteams (as well as companies, platoons, and squads), similar in size to those employed by the USMC, in their organizational structure. Seabee units may be attached to Marine Corps units.

Other
Many other armed forces see the squad as the smallest military unit; some countries' armies have a pair consisting of two soldiers as the smallest military unit. In others a fireteam is composed of two pairs of soldiers (fire and maneuver team) forming a fireteam. Vietnamese communist forces, who received extensive advisory support from Chinese communists, also adopted a fireteam concept similar to that of Chinese, known as "tam tam chế", and such organization is still in use.

History
Fireteams have their origins in the early 20th century. From the Napoleonic Wars until World War I, military tactics involved central control of large numbers of soldiers in mass formation where small units were given little initiative.

Groups of four soldiers were mainly employed for guard duty, or as bodyguards for VIPs. In the Roman Army they were referred to as quaternio (Greek τετράδιον).

Skirmishers in the Napoleonic War would often work in teams of two, ranging ahead of the main group and providing covering fire for each other.

World War I
During World War I, trench warfare resulted in a stalemate on the Western Front. In order to combat this stalemate, the Germans developed a doctrinal innovation known as infiltration tactics (based on the Russian tactics used in the Brusilov Offensive), in which a brief intensive artillery preparation would be followed by small, autonomous teams of stormtroopers, who would covertly penetrate defensive lines. The Germans used their stormtroopers organized into squads at the lowest levels to provide a cohesive strike force in breaking through Allied lines. The British and Canadian troops on the Western Front started dividing platoons into sections after the Battle of the Somme in 1916. (This idea was later further developed in World War II). French Chasseur units in WWI were organized into fireteams, equipped with a light machine gun (Chauchat) team and grenades, to destroy German fire positions by fire (not assault) at up to 200 meters using rifle grenades. The light machine gun team would put suppressive fire on the enemy position, while the grenadier team moved to a position where the enemy embrasure could be attacked with grenades. The Chasseur tactics were proven during the Petain Offensive of 1917. Survivors of these French Chasseur units taught these tactics to American infantry, who used them with effectiveness at St. Mihiel and the Argonne. It was typical of a fireteam in this era to consist of four infantrymen: two assaulters with carbines, one grenadier, and one sapper.

Interwar period
In the inter-war years, United States Marine Corps Captain Evans F. Carlson and Merritt A. Edson are believed to have developed the fireteam concept during the United States occupation of Nicaragua (1912–1933). At that time the US Marine squad consisted of a Corporal and seven Marines all armed with a bolt-action M1903 Springfield rifle and an automatic rifleman armed with a Browning Automatic Rifle. The introduction of the Thompson submachine gun and Winchester Model 1912 shotgun was popular with the Marines as a point-defense weapon for countering ambush by Nicaraguan guerrillas within the thick vegetation that could provide cover for a quick overrun of a patrol. A team of four men armed with these weapons had proven more effective in terms of firepower and maneuverability than the standard nine-man rifle squad.

Carlson, who later went to China in 1937 and observed Communist 8th Route Army units of the National Revolutionary Army in action against the Imperial Japanese Army, brought these ideas back to the US when the country entered World War II. Under his command, the 2nd Marine Raider battalion were issued with the semi-automatic M1 Garand rifle and were organized in the standard 4-man fireteam (although it was called firegroup) concept, 3 firegroups to a squad with a squad leader. A firegroup was composed of an M1 Garand rifleman, a BAR gunner and a submachine gunner. After sustaining severe wounds, Carlson was replaced and his battalion later disbanded and reorganized under conventional Marine doctrine of ten-man squads. Later, Carlson's fireteam concept was re-adopted.

World War II
WWII US Army rifle squads consisted of twelve soldiers divided into three teams: The A "Able" (contemporary spelling alphabet) team consisted of the squad leader and two scouts, the support B "Baker" team of the BAR gunner, assistant gunner, and ammunition bearer, and C "Charlie" team of the assistant squad leader, also serving as the anti-tank grenadier, and five riflemen, one of whom served as the alternate anti-tank grenadier). In an assault the A team would provide overwatch and security or assist the C team in the assault, as the squad leader directed, while the B team provided suppressive fire. Suppressive fire from the BAR would be supplemented by fire from the rifles of his team as he reloaded, and could be further supplemented by platoon medium machine guns.

The US Army Rangers and Special Service Force adopted an early fireteam concept when on campaign in Italy and France. Each squad sub-unit of four or five men was heavily armed, composed of a two-man BAR automatic rifleman and assistant, a scout (marksman/grenadier) armed with an M1903 Springfield with a rifle grenade discharger, and a team leader armed with an M1 carbine or M1 Thompson submachine gun. Their later misuse as conventional infantry negated their special training and fighting skill and their use as "fire brigades" against larger enemy forces negated their advantages in aggressiveness and firepower.

Meanwhile, the communist Chinese established the three-man fireteam concept as the three-man cell when they organized a regular army, and its organization seemed to have been disseminated throughout all of Asia's communist forces, perhaps the most famous of which are the PAVN/NVA (People's Army of Vietnam/North Vietnamese Army) and the Viet Cong.

Battle pair

A battle pair is the smallest unit above the individual soldier, in the modern era chiefly employed by Baltic militaries and special forces like the Special Air Service. It consists of two soldiers with one soldier acting as senior of the two fighters (decided amongst the two or by their superior). A fireteam in turn consists of at least two fire and maneuver teams, and a squad of two or more fireteams.

It may be known in the United States as a fire and maneuver team. This concept has not been widely utilized. The United States and most Commonwealth armies mainly rely on the concept of fire teams forming a squad.

Estonia
Such a team is known as a Lahingpaar or battle pair.

Finland
Until 2015 in the Finnish Defence Forces, three taistelupari (combat pairs) formed a squad along with a squad leader. A three-man fireteam is now the smallest standard unit in Finnish infantry doctrine.

France
The French Army has the concept of a binôme ('pair'). In the regular forces it is the pairing of an experienced soldier with a recruit or replacement. The new soldier learns from the experienced soldier how to properly perform the everyday tasks and responsibilities of his assignment.

In the old colonial forces (like the French Foreign Legion) it was a means of imposing order. The pair were responsible for each other – if one member broke the rules or deserted, the other would be punished for not preventing it.

Sweden
According to the Swedish Armed Forces field manual, a Stridspar working in unison is as effective as four soldiers of same quality acting individually.

title: Fireteam


text:
Original position

The original position (OP), often referred to as the veil of ignorance, is a thought experiment used for reasoning about the principles that should structure a society based on mutual dependence. The phrases original position and veil of ignorance were coined by the American philosopher John Rawls, but the thought experiment itself was developed by William Vickrey and John Harsanyi in earlier writings.

In the original position, you are asked to consider which principles you would select for the basic structure of society, but you must select as if you had no knowledge ahead of time what position you would end up having in that society. This choice is made from behind a "veil of ignorance", which prevents you from knowing your ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially in Rawls' formulation, your or anyone else's idea of how to lead a good life. Ideally, this would force participants to select principles impartially and rationally.

In Rawls's theory the original position plays the same role that the "state of nature" does in the social contract tradition of Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. The original position figures prominently in Rawls's 1971 book, A Theory of Justice. It has influenced a variety of thinkers from a broad spectrum of philosophical orientations.

History
The concept of the veil of ignorance has been in use by other names for centuries by philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant whose work discussed the concept of the social contract, Adam Smith with his "impartial spectator", or the ideal observer theory. John Harsanyi helped to formalize the concept in economics, and argued that it provides an argument in favor of utilitarianism rather than an argument for a social contract, as rational agents consider expected outcomes, not maximin outcomes or the worst-case outcomes. Harsanyi argued that a person in the original position would maximize their expected utility, rather than choosing minimax. The usage of the term by John Rawls was developed in his 1971 book A Theory of Justice. Modern work tends to focus on the different decision theories that might describe the choice of the decision-maker "behind the veil". In addition, Michael Moehler has shown that, from a moral point of view, decision theory is not necessarily central to veil of ignorance arguments, but the precise moral ideals that are assumed to model the veil. From a moral point of view, there is not one veil of ignorance but many different versions of it.

Nature of the concept
Rawls specifies that the parties in the original position are concerned only with citizens' share of what he calls primary social goods, which include basic rights as well as economic and social advantages. Rawls also argues that the representatives in the original position would adopt the maximin rule as their principle for evaluating the choices before them. Borrowed from game theory, maximin stands for maximizing the minimum, i.e., making the choice that produces the highest payoff for the least advantaged position. Thus, maximin in the original position represents a formulation of social equality.

In social contract theory, citizens in a state of nature contract with each other to establish a state of civil society. For example, in the Lockean state of nature, the parties agree to establish a civil society in which the government has limited powers and the duty to protect the persons and property of citizens. In the original position, the representative parties select principles of justice that are to govern the basic structure of society. Rawls argues that the representative parties in the original position would select two principles of justice:

 * 1) Each citizen is guaranteed a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties, which is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all others;
 * 2) Social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:
 * 3) * to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (the difference principle);
 * 4) * attached to positions and offices open to all.

The reason that the least well off member gets benefited is that it is argued that under the veil of ignorance people will act as if they were risk-averse. The original position is a unique and irrevocable choice about all the most important social goods, and they do not know the probability they will become any particular member of society. As insurance against the worst possible outcome, they will pick rules that maximize the benefits given to the minimum outcome (maximin).

Recently, Thomas Nagel has elaborated on the concept of original position, arguing that social ethics should be built taking into account the tension between original and actual positions.

Recently, the original position has been modeled mathematically along Wright-Fisher's diffusion, classical in population genetics. The original position has also been used as an argument for negative eugenics, though Rawls' argument was limited to its use as a preventative measure.

Criticisms
In Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), Robert Nozick argues that, while the original position may be the just starting point, any inequalities derived from that distribution by means of free exchange are equally just, and that any re-distributive tax is an infringement on people's liberty. He also argues that Rawls's application of the maximin rule to the original position is risk aversion taken to its extreme, and is therefore unsuitable even to those behind the veil of ignorance.

In Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982), Michael Sandel has criticized Rawls's notion of a veil of ignorance, pointing out that it is impossible, for an individual, to completely prescind from beliefs and convictions (from the Me ultimately), as is required by Rawls's thought experiment. More recently, the psychological implausibility of Rawls's theory has been highlighted using possible worlds, in a paper that stresses some problematic points of Rawls's proposal.

In a 1987 empirical research study, Frohlich, Oppenheimer and Eavey showed that in a simulated original position, persons throughout a variety of temporal and cultural settings unanimously agreed upon a distributive principle that (in great majority) maximizes the average with a specified floor constraint (a minimum for the worst-off in any given distribution). The finding that a much less demanding distributive principle of justice is agreed upon in a (simulated) original position than Rawls' specification of the "difference principle", implies that the (rational) resistance to a cosmopolitan application of justice as fairness could be less forceful than its critics imagine.

In How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time (2008), Iain King argues that people in the original position should not be risk-averse, leading them to adopt the Help Principle (Help someone if your help is worth more to them than it is to you) rather than maximin.

Philosopher and Law Professor Harold Anthony Lloyd argues that Rawls's veil of ignorance is hardly hypothetical but instead dangerously real since individuals cannot know at any point in time the future either for themselves or for others (or in fact know all aspects of either their relevant past or present). Faced with the high stakes of such ignorance, careful egoism effectively becomes altruism by minimizing/sharing risk through social safety nets and other means such as insurance.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Original position


text:
Jonathan Weiner

Jonathan Weiner (born November 26, 1953) is an American writer of non-fiction books based on his biological observations, focusing particularly on evolution in the Galápagos Islands, genetics, and the environment.

His latest book is Long for This World: The Strange Science of Immortality (Ecco Press, July 2010) a look at the scientific search for the Fountain of Youth.

He won the 1995 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction and the 1994 Los Angeles Times Book Prize for Science for his book The Beak of the Finch. In 1999 he won the National Book Critics Circle Award and was shortlisted for the Aventis Prize in 2000 for his book Time, Love, Memory about Seymour Benzer.

Biography
Weiner was born November 26, 1953, to a Jewish family in New York City, the son of Ponnie (née Mensch) and Jerome Harris Weiner, an engineer and mathematician. In 1976, he graduated from Harvard University.

Weiner is the Maxwell M. Geffen Professor of Medical and Scientific Journalism at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, where he teaches writing about science and medicine. He has taught at Princeton University, Arizona State University and Rockefeller University.

Personal life
In 1982, he married Deborah Heiligman in a Jewish ceremony in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Heligman is a children's writer whose focus is also nonfiction. They live in New York City with their two sons, Aaron and Benjamin.

Deborah Heiligman's book about Emma Darwin and her relationship with Charles, Charles and Emma: The Darwins' Leap of Faith (Henry Holt, January 2009)—"for Middle Readers and Young Adults"—won the inaugural YALSA Award for Excellence in Nonfiction for Young Adults from the American young-adult librarians, as the year's best nonfiction book. It was the runner-up among all young-adult books based on literary merit (Printz Award), as well as for the National Book Award.

Selected works

 * Planet Earth (1986), the companion book to the 1986 PBS series of the same name.
 * The Next One Hundred Years: Shaping the Fate of Our Living Earth (1990) ISBN 9780553352283,
 * The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time (1994) ISBN 9780679733379,
 * Time, Love, Memory: A Great Biologist and His Quest for the Origins of Behavior (1999); 2014 ebook
 * His Brother's Keeper: A Story from the Edge of Medicine (2004)
 * Long for this World: The Strange Science of Immortality (2010) ISBN 9780060765361,

title: Jonathan Weiner


text:
Talk:SMS

SMS != Text messaging
Regarding this edit, text messaging and SMS are not the same thing. SMS is a specific protocol, and there are other text messaging implementations that are not SMS-based. Jpatokal 15:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

 * You're confusing the importance of the technical definition of jargon with the common vernacular of the English-speaking world. If Wikipedia were the GSM specification, or a technical reference for a technical audience, then you'd be absolutely correct in pointing this out.  The vast majority of the world understands an "SMS" to mean a "mobile phone text message", without regard for the protocol or the implementation actually used on their phone. Reswobslc 16:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted Reswobslc's changes, and I have done so for a very specific reason. Look back up in this talk section a couple of lines, and you'll see the requested split consensus.  Basically, the original article here was an utter mess, mixing up the technical details with the social aspects.  World wide (note, NOT N. American specific), the common term is texting, or text messaging.  The Short Message Service is, always has been, and always will be, the means by which text messages are sent.  There is a very deliberate stub template in the article for people who know about non-GSM implementations to come along and add their knowledge to the technical aspects.  In the meantime, the Text messaging article is the place to talk about "texting", from a non-technical perspective, whereas this article is where the technical details should go.  I've tried, at the top of this article, above the lead, to point people looking at the social aspects to the right place, but it seems not to be working.  If this crap carries on, I'm inclined to just revert everything to the original article, and let everyone else sort out the resulting abortion of an article. Carre 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it's definitely worth clarifying "The Short Message Service is, always has been, and always will be, the means by which text messages are sent." is just wrong. In some parts of the English speaking world, texting/text messaging now means any form of mobile to mobile communication and is increasingly not SMS based (WhatsApp, iMessage, Facebook are all increasingly common used for 'texting' and one of them are Short Message Service/GSM based. richardwhiuk 22:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Short Message Service → Short message service – per Naming conventions for capitalization 2607:FB90:5CE8:DE66:5DB2:40A9:A290:77CF (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a proper name. --В²C ☎ 19:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral For me,there is no reason to object and support.--Tr56tr (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose moving to SMS, who says "short message service" nowadays? SMS already redirects to the article. Timmyshin (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to SMS: As with DVD and CD, this topic is primarily encountered in its abbreviated form, and (although there are other topics identified at SMS (disambiguation)) this topic appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "SMS". SMS has redirected here for 5 years and was the title of the article before that. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 23 March 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Short Message Service → SMS – per WP:COMMONNAME. This was suggested in the previous just-closed RM with no objection. There was a prior RM in 2009 that moved the article to "SMS", and I'm not sure how it got moved back to where it is. As with DVD and CD, this topic is primarily encountered in its abbreviated form, and (although there are other topics identified at SMS (disambiguation)) this topic appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "SMS". SMS has redirected here for 5 years and was the title of the article before that. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. As far as I can tell, this article doesn't even really use "Short Message Service" outside of the lead. Appears to be the common name and primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose  I would agree with both posters above. However I believe that WP policy then overrules all three of us, and not without reason. SMS is an acronym for Short Message Service. It is the function of the article title to be canonical, and thus the full form is what's needed here. SMS is, of course, already a redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy does not prefer spelling out abbreviations when the abbreviation is the more WP:COMMONNAME and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Please see WP:ACRONYMTITLE. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But how often are they called "SMS"? If they're used in the "populist short form", that would be "text". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That has been discussed before, and there is a different article at text messaging. SMS is not really synonymous with text messaging. Even on mobile phones, without using something like Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, or Viber, the text messaging often does not use SMS. For example, they may often use MMS, and as the article on that topic says, "MMS messages are delivered in a different way from SMS." As long as it is better known as "SMS" than by its current title, I think the move is appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So the article on "texting" should be called "SMS", because SMS often isn't used?? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I never suggested that the article at "texting" (which is a redirect to text messaging) should be moved to "SMS". That doesn't seem like it would be a good idea. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ACRONYMTITLE says "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title." I think that is the case here. Most people who are familiar with using SMS on their mobile phones probably don't know (or don't remember) the unabbreviated form of the term. Quick, without looking somewhere else, is it "Short Message System", "Short Messaging System", "Short Message Service", or "Short Messaging Service"? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Support move. SMS is the common name for the service.  ONR  (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

timestamp metadata
Please add information about timestamp metadata. What timestamps does a sent SMS contain? What timestamps does a received SMS contain? Many phone users are confused and frustrated by wanting the sent time for received msgs but being shown the less useful received time. Much of this limitation and confusion seems to be caused by the apps. But if we could have some clarity about the embedded SMS timestamp metadata we would be able to know what the apps could be making available to the user.-73.61.15.145 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Reference 74 offline
The link at reference 74, about Flash SMS, does not exist anymore.

Itskieran (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for reporting this. I've linked an archived copy of this reference. —Bruce1eetalk 14:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:SMS


text:
The Beak of the Finch

The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time (ISBN 0-679-40003-6) is a 1994 nonfiction book about evolutionary biology, written by Jonathan Weiner. It won the 1995 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction. In 2014, a substantially unchanged 20th-anniversary edition e-book was issued with a preface by the author.

Content
In a 1995 review of the book states "In The Beak of the Finch, Jonathan Weiner vividly describes the excitement of modern evolutionary biology through the eyes and activities of two of its most important students, Peter and Rosemary Grant. " The finches of the title are the Galapagos or 'Darwin's Finches,' passerine songbirds in the Galapagos Islands. The species are so distinct that when Charles Darwin collected them in the islands he thought they were completely different birds, and it was only when he was back in London in 1837 that the ornithologist John Gould revealed that they were closely allied, reinforcing Darwin's growing view that “species are not immutable.” The adaptations of their numerous species, in three genera, show diverging evolution to exploit several ecological niches in the rugged and dry Galápagos Islands.

Weiner follows the careers of two biologists, Peter and Rosemary Grant, and several of their graduate students, including Dolph Schluter, Trevor Price, James (Jamie) Smith, and Peter Boag. The Grants spent more than thirty years (twenty of which are covered in the book) studying the morphology (especially bill shape), reproduction, survival, and behaviour of entire populations of Galapagos finches. Their work revolutionized scientists understanding of the pace of evolution, proving that evolution can be observed in 'real time'. Weiner describes years of painstaking field work on a desert island among the Galapagos, Daphne Major. Following years of intense drought or flooding, the Grants and their students were able to demonstrate all the necessary requirements for natural selection: traits have fitness consequences, respond to selection, and are heritable. Kim Sterelny (2007) cites this rapid natural selection as illustrating an important point about periods of relative stasis in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould: "In claiming that species typically undergo no further evolutionary change once speciation is complete, they are not claiming that there is no change at all between one generation and the next. Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch describes this very process".

While the book focuses on the Grant's and Darwin's finches, it also covers work on fruit flies by Dobzhansky (Chaper 12) and Trinidadian guppies led by John Endler (Chapter 6).

In the conclusion the author relates the speed of evolution to the growing resistance of insects to insecticides and of bacteria to penicillin and related anti-bacterial drugs.

Reception
The book is well received by biologists, and has been praised for its description of the ups and downs of fieldwork, the excitement of unexpected results, and the growing emphasis on critical statistical analysis to uncover patterns. It received some criticism for over-emphasizing the research by the Grants, e.g. Weiner's claim that they discovered species pairs of sticklebacks in freshwater lakes that were already well-known. But reviews agree that the book is compelling, well written, and an excellent primer on how evolution works.

title: The Beak of the Finch


text:
Feng-hsiung Hsu

Feng-hsiung Hsu (born January 1, 1959) (nicknamed Crazy Bird) is a Taiwanese-American computer scientist and the author of the book Behind Deep Blue: Building the Computer that Defeated the World Chess Champion. His work led to the creation of the Deep Thought chess computer, which led to the first chess playing computer to defeat grandmasters in tournament play and the first to achieve a certified grandmaster-level rating.

Hsu was the architect and the principal designer of the IBM Deep Blue chess computer. He was the recipient of the 1990 Mephisto Best-Publication Award for his doctoral dissertation and also the 1991 ACM Grace Murray Hopper Award for his contributions in architecture and algorithms for chess machines.

Career
Hsu was born in Keelung, Taiwan, and came to the United States after graduating from National Taiwan University with a BS in E.E. He started his graduate work at Carnegie Mellon University in the field of computer chess in the year 1985. In 1988 he was part of the "Deep Thought" team that won the Fredkin Intermediate Prize for Deep Thought's grandmaster-level performance. In 1989 he joined IBM to design a chess-playing computer and received a Ph.D. in computer science with honors from Carnegie Mellon University.

In 1991, the Association for Computing Machinery awarded Hsu a Grace Murray Hopper Award for his work on Deep Blue. In 1996, the supercomputer lost to world chess champion Garry Kasparov. After the loss, Hsu's team prepared for a re-match. During the re-match with Kasparov, the supercomputer had double the processing power it had during the previous match. On May 11, 1997, Kasparov lost the sixth and final game, and, with it, the match (2½–3½).

Prior to building the supercomputer Deep Blue that defeated Kasparov, Hsu worked on many other chess computers. He started with ChipTest, a simple chess-playing chip, based on a design from Unix-inventor Ken Thompson's Belle, and very different from the other chess-playing computer being developed at Carnegie Mellon, HiTech, which was developed by Hans Berliner and included 64 different chess chips for the move generator instead of the one in Hsu's series. Hsu went on to build the successively better chess-playing computers Deep Thought, Deep Thought II, and Deep Blue Prototype.

In 2003, Hsu joined Microsoft Research Asia, in Beijing. In 2007, he stated the view that brute-force computation has eclipsed humans in chess, and it could soon do the same in the ancient Asian game of Go. This came to pass nine years later in 2016.

title: Feng-hsiung Hsu


text:
World Chess Championship

The World Chess Championship is played to determine the world champion in chess. The current world champion is Ding Liren, who defeated his opponent Ian Nepomniachtchi in the 2023 World Chess Championship. Magnus Carlsen, the previous world champion, had declined to defend his title.

The first event recognized as a world championship was the 1886 match between the two leading players in the world, Wilhelm Steinitz and Johannes Zukertort. Steinitz won, becoming the first world champion. From 1886 to 1946, the champion set the terms, requiring any challenger to raise a sizable stake and defeat the champion in a match in order to become the new world champion. Following the death of reigning world champion Alexander Alekhine in 1946, FIDE (the International Chess Federation) took over administration of the World Championship, beginning with the 1948 World Championship tournament. From 1948 to 1993, FIDE organized a set of tournaments to choose a new challenger every three years. In 1993, reigning champion Garry Kasparov broke away from FIDE, which led to a rival claimant to the title of World Champion for the next thirteen years. The titles were unified at the World Chess Championship 2006, and all subsequent matches have once again been administered by FIDE.

Since 2014, the championship has settled on a two-year cycle, with championships occurring every even year. The 2020 and 2022 matches were postponed to 2021 and 2023 respectively because of the COVID-19 pandemic; the next match will return to the normal schedule and be held in 2024.

Though the world championship is open to all players, there are separate championships for women, under-20s and lower age groups, and seniors. There are also chess world championships in rapid, blitz, correspondence, problem solving, Fischer random chess, and computer chess.

Before 1851
The game of chess in its modern form emerged in Spain in the 15th century, though rule variations persisted until the late 19th century. Before Wilhelm Steinitz and Johannes Zukertort in the late 19th century, no chess player seriously claimed to be champion of the world. The phrase was used by some chess writers to describe other players of their day, and the status of being the best at the time has sometimes been awarded in retrospect, going back to the early 17th-century Italian player Gioachino Greco (the first player where complete games survive). Richard Lambe, in his 1764 book The History of Chess, wrote that the 18th-century French player François-André Danican Philidor was "supposed to be the best Chess-player in the world". Philidor wrote an extremely successful chess book (Analyse du jeu des Échecs) and gave public demonstrations of his blindfold chess skills. However, some of Philidor's contemporaries were not convinced by the analysis Philidor gave in his book (e.g. the Modenese Masters), and some more recent authors have echoed these doubts.

In the early 19th century, it was generally considered that the French player Alexandre Deschapelles was the strongest player of the time, though three games between him and the English player William Lewis in 1821 suggests that they were on par. After Deschapelles and Lewis withdrew from play, the strongest players from France and England respectively were recognised as Louis de la Bourdonnais and Alexander McDonnell. La Bourdonnais visited England in 1825, where he played many games against Lewis and won most of them, and defeated all the other English masters despite offering handicaps. He and McDonnell contested a long series of matches in 1834. These were the first to be adequately reported, and they somewhat resemble the later world championship matches. Approximately 85 games (the true number is up for historical debate) were played, with La Bourdonnais winning a majority of the games.

In 1839, George Walker wrote "The sceptre of chess, in Europe, has been for the last century, at least, wielded by a Gallic dynasty. It has passed from Legalle [Philidor's teacher, who Philidor regarded as being a player equal to himself, according to Deschapelles] to La Bourdonnais, through the grasp, successively, of Philidor, Bernard, Carlier [two members of La Société des Amateurs], and Deschapelles". In 1840, a columnist in Fraser's Magazine (who was probably Walker) wrote, "Will Gaul continue the dynasty by placing a fourth Frenchman on the throne of the world? the three last chess chiefs having been successively Philidor, Deschapelles, and De La Bourdonnais."

After La Bourdonnais' death in December 1840, Englishman Howard Staunton's match victory over another Frenchman, Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant, in 1843 is considered to have established Staunton as the world's strongest player, at least in England and France. By the 1830s, players from Germany and more generally Central Europe were beginning to appear on the scene: the strongest of the Berlin players around 1840 was probably Ludwig Bledow, co-founder of the Berlin Pleiades. The earliest recorded use of the term "World Champion" was in 1845, when Staunton was described as "the Chess Champion of England, or ... the Champion of the World".

From 1851 to 1886
An important milestone was the London 1851 chess tournament, which was the first international chess tournament, organized by Staunton. It was played as a series of matches, and was won convincingly by the German Adolf Anderssen, including a 4–1 semi-final win over Staunton. This established Anderssen as the world's leading player. In 1893, Henry Bird retrospectively awarded the title of first world chess champion to Anderssen for his victory, but there is no evidence that he was widely acclaimed as such at the time, and no mention of such a status afterwards in the tournament book by Staunton. Indeed, Staunton's tournament book calls Anderssen "after Heydebrand der Laza [Tassilo von der Lasa, another of the Berlin Pleiades], the best player of Germany": von der Lasa was unable to attend the 1851 tournament, though he was invited. In 1851, Anderssen lost a match to von der Lasa; in 1856, George Walker wrote that "[von der Lasa] and Anderssen are decidedly the two best in the known world". Von der Lasa did not compete in tournaments or formal matches because of the demands of his diplomatic career, but his games show that he was one of the world's best then: he won series of games against Staunton in 1844 and 1853.

Anderssen was himself decisively beaten in an 1858 match against the American Paul Morphy (7–2, 2 draws). In 1858–59 Morphy played matches against several leading players, beating them all. This prompted some commentators at the time to call him the world champion: Gabriel-Éloy Doazan, who knew Morphy, wrote that "one can and...must place [him] in the same bracket" as Deschapelles and La Bourdonnais, who he had played years before, and that "his superiority is as obvious as theirs". But when Morphy returned to America in 1859, he abruptly retired from chess, though many considered him the world champion until his death in 1884. His sudden withdrawal from chess at his peak led to his being known as "the pride and sorrow of chess".

After Morphy's retirement from chess, Anderssen was again regarded as the world's strongest active player, a reputation he reinforced by winning the strong London 1862 chess tournament. Louis Paulsen and Ignatz Kolisch were also playing at a comparable standard to Anderssen in the 1860s: Anderssen narrowly won a match against Kolisch in 1861, and drew against Paulsen in 1862.

In 1866, Wilhelm Steinitz narrowly defeated Anderssen in a match (8–6, 0 draws). However, he was not immediately able to conclusively demonstrate his superiority. Steinitz placed third at the Paris 1867 chess tournament, behind Kolisch and Szymon Winawer; he placed second at the Dundee 1867 tournament, behind Gustav Neumann; and he again placed second at the Baden-Baden 1870 chess tournament, which was the strongest that had been held to date (Anderssen came first, and won twice against Steinitz). Steinitz confirmed his standing as the world's leading player by winning the London 1872 tournament, winning a match against Johannes Zukertort in 1872 (7–1, 4 draws), winning the Vienna 1873 chess tournament, and decisively winning a match over Joseph Henry Blackburne 7–0 (0 draws) in 1876.

Apart from the Blackburne match, Steinitz played no competitive chess between the Vienna tournaments of 1873 and 1882. During that time, Zukertort emerged as the world's leading active player, winning the Paris 1878 chess tournament. Zukertort then won the London 1883 chess tournament by a convincing 3-point margin, ahead of nearly every leading player in the world, with Steinitz finishing second. This tournament established Steinitz and Zukertort as the best two players in the world, and led to a match between these two, the World Chess Championship 1886, won by Steinitz.

There is some debate over whether to date Steinitz's reign as world champion from his win over Anderssen in 1866, or from his win over Zukertort in 1886. The 1886 match was clearly agreed to be for the world championship, but there is no indication that Steinitz was regarded as the defending champion. There is also no known evidence of Steinitz being called the world champion after defeating Anderssen in 1866. It has been suggested that Steinitz could not make such a claim while Morphy was alive (Morphy died in 1884). There are a number of references to Steinitz as world champion in the 1870s, the earliest being after the first Zukertort match in 1872. Later, in 1879, it was argued that Zukertort was world champion, since Morphy and Steinitz were not active. However, later in his career, at least from 1887, Steinitz dated his reign from this 1866 match, and early sources such as the New York Times in 1894, Emanuel Lasker in 1908, and Reuben Fine in 1952 all do the same.

Many modern commentators divide Steinitz's reign into an "unofficial" one from 1866 to 1886, and an "official" one after 1886. By this reckoning, the first World Championship match was in 1886, and Steinitz was the first official World Chess Champion.

Reign of Wilhelm Steinitz (1886–1894)
Following the Steinitz–Zukertort match, a tradition continued of the world championship being decided by a match between the reigning champion, and a challenger: if a player thought he was strong enough, he (or his friends) would find financial backing for a match purse and challenge the reigning world champion. If he won, he would become the new champion.

Steinitz successfully defended his world title against Mikhail Chigorin in 1889, Isidor Gunsberg in 1891, and Chigorin again in 1892.

In 1887, the American Chess Congress started work on drawing up regulations for the future conduct of world championship contests. Steinitz supported this endeavor, as he thought he was becoming too old to remain world champion. The proposal evolved through many forms (as Steinitz pointed out, such a project had never been undertaken before), and resulted in the 1889 tournament in New York to select a challenger for Steinitz, rather like the more recent Candidates Tournaments. The tournament was duly played, but the outcome was not quite as planned: Chigorin and Max Weiss tied for first place; their play-off resulted in four draws; and neither wanted to play a match against Steinitz – Chigorin had just lost to him, and Weiss wanted to get back to his work for the Rothschild Bank. The third prizewinner, Isidor Gunsberg, was prepared to play Steinitz for the title in New York, so this match was played in 1890–1891 and was won by Steinitz. The experiment was not repeated, and Steinitz's later matches were private arrangements between the players.

Two young strong players emerged in late 1880s and early 1890s: Siegbert Tarrasch and Emanuel Lasker. Tarrasch had the better tournament results at the time, but it was Lasker who was able to raise the money to challenge Steinitz. Lasker won the 1894 match and succeeded Steinitz as world champion.

Emanuel Lasker (1894–1921)
Lasker held the title from 1894 to 1921, the longest reign (27 years) of any champion. He won a return match against Steinitz in 1897, and then did not defend his title for ten years, before playing four title defences in four years. He comfortably defeated Frank Marshall in 1907 and Siegbert Tarrasch in 1908. In 1910, he almost lost his title in a short tied match against Carl Schlechter, although the exact conditions of this match are a mystery. He then defeated Dawid Janowski in the most one-sided title match in history later in 1910.

Lasker's negotiations for title matches from 1911 onwards were extremely controversial. In 1911, he received a challenge for a world title match against José Raúl Capablanca and, in addition to making severe financial demands, proposed some novel conditions: the match should be considered drawn if neither player finished with a two-game lead; and it should have a maximum of 30 games, but finish if either player won six games and had a two-game lead (previous matches had been won by the first to win a certain number of games, usually 10; in theory, such a match might go on for ever). Capablanca objected to the two-game lead clause; Lasker took offence at the terms in which Capablanca criticized the two-game lead condition and broke off negotiations.

Further controversy arose when, in 1912, Lasker's terms for a proposed match with Akiba Rubinstein included a clause that, if Lasker should resign the title after a date had been set for the match, Rubinstein should become world champion. When he resumed negotiations with Capablanca after World War I, Lasker insisted on a similar clause that if Lasker should resign the title after a date had been set for the match, Capablanca should become world champion. On 27 June 1920 Lasker abdicated in favor of Capablanca because of public criticism of the terms of the match, naming Capablanca as his successor. Some commentators questioned Lasker's right to name his successor; Amos Burn raised the same objection but welcomed Lasker's resignation of the title. Capablanca argued that, if the champion abdicated, the title must go to the challenger, as any other arrangement would be unfair to the challenger. Lasker later agreed to play a match against Capablanca in 1921, announcing that, if he won, he would resign the title so that younger masters could compete for it. Capablanca won their 1921 match by four wins, ten draws and no losses.

Capablanca, Alekhine and Euwe (1921–1946)

After the breakdown of his first attempt to negotiate a title match against Lasker (1911), Capablanca drafted rules for the conduct of future challenges, which were agreed to by the other top players at the 1914 Saint Petersburg tournament, including Lasker, and approved at the Mannheim Congress later that year. The main points were: the champion must be prepared to defend his title once a year; the match should be won by the first player to win six or eight games (the champion had the right to choose); and the stake should be at least £1,000 (about £0 in current terms).

Following the controversies surrounding his 1921 match against Lasker, in 1922 world champion Capablanca proposed the "London Rules": the first player to win six games would win the match; playing sessions would be limited to 5 hours; the time limit would be 40 moves in 2½ hours; the champion must defend his title within one year of receiving a challenge from a recognized master; the champion would decide the date of the match; the champion was not obliged to accept a challenge for a purse of less than US$10,000 (about $0 in current terms); 20% of the purse was to be paid to the title holder, and the remainder being divided, 60% going to the winner of the match, and 40% to the loser; the highest purse bid must be accepted. Alekhine, Bogoljubow, Maróczy, Réti, Rubinstein, Tartakower and Vidmar promptly signed them.

The only match played under those rules was Capablanca vs Alekhine in 1927, although there has been speculation that the actual contract might have included a "two-game lead" clause. Alekhine, Rubinstein and Nimzowitsch had all challenged Capablanca in the early 1920s but only Alekhine could raise the US$10,000 Capablanca demanded and only in 1927. Capablanca was shockingly upset by the new challenger. Before the match, almost nobody gave Alekhine a chance against the dominant Cuban, but Alekhine overcame Capablanca's natural skill with his unmatched drive and extensive preparation (especially deep opening analysis, which became a hallmark of most future grandmasters). The aggressive Alekhine was helped by his tactical skill, which complicated the game.

Immediately after winning, Alekhine announced that he was willing to grant Capablanca a return match provided Capablanca met the requirements of the "London Rules". Negotiations dragged on for several years, often breaking down when agreement seemed in sight. Alekhine easily won two title matches against Efim Bogoljubov in 1929 and 1934.

In 1935, Alekhine was unexpectedly defeated by the Dutch Max Euwe, an amateur player who worked as a mathematics teacher. Alekhine convincingly won a rematch in 1937. World War II temporarily prevented any further world title matches, and Alekhine remained world champion until his death in 1946.

Financing
Before 1948 world championship matches were financed by arrangements similar to those Emanuel Lasker described for his 1894 match with Wilhelm Steinitz: either the challenger or both players, with the assistance of financial backers, would contribute to a purse; about half would be distributed to the winner's backers, and the winner would receive the larger share of the remainder (the loser's backers got nothing). The players had to meet their own travel, accommodation, food and other expenses out of their shares of the purse. This system evolved out of the wagering of small stakes on club games in the early 19th century.

Up to and including the 1894 Steinitz–Lasker match, both players, with their backers, generally contributed equally to the purse, following the custom of important matches in the 19th century before there was a generally recognized world champion. For example: the stakes were £100 a side in both the second Staunton vs Saint-Amant match (Paris, 1843) and the Anderssen vs Steinitz match (London, 1866); Steinitz and Zukertort played their 1886 match for £400 a side. Lasker introduced the practice of demanding that the challenger should provide the whole of the purse, and his successors followed his example up to World War II. This requirement made arranging world championship matches more difficult, for example: Marshall challenged Lasker in 1904 but could not raise the money until 1907; in 1911 Lasker and Rubinstein agreed in principle to a world championship match, but this was never played as Rubinstein could not raise the money. In the early 1920s, Alekhine, Rubinstein and Nimzowitsch all challenged Capablanca, but only Alekhine was able to raise the US$10,000 that Capablanca demanded, and not until 1927.

FIDE, Euwe and AVRO
Attempts to form an international chess federation were made at the time of the 1914 St. Petersburg, 1914 Mannheim and 1920 Gothenburg Tournaments. On 20 July 1924 the participants at the Paris tournament founded FIDE as a kind of players' union.

FIDE's congresses in 1925 and 1926 expressed a desire to become involved in managing the world championship. FIDE was largely happy with the "London Rules", but claimed that the requirement for a purse of $10,000 was impracticable and called upon Capablanca to come to an agreement with the leading masters to revise the Rules. In 1926 FIDE decided in principle to create a title of "Champion of FIDE" and, in 1928, adopted the forthcoming 1928 Bogoljubow–Euwe match (won by Bogoljubow) as being for the "FIDE championship". Alekhine agreed to place future matches for the world title under the auspices of FIDE, except that he would only play Capablanca under the same conditions that governed their match in 1927. Although FIDE wished to set up a match between Alekhine and Bogoljubow, it made little progress and the title "Champion of FIDE" quietly vanished after Alekhine won the 1929 world championship match that he and Bogoljubow themselves arranged. While negotiating his 1937 World Championship rematch with Alekhine, Euwe proposed that if he retained the title FIDE should manage the nomination of future challengers and the conduct of championship matches. FIDE had been trying since 1935 to introduce rules on how to select challengers, and its various proposals favored selection by some sort of committee. While they were debating procedures in 1937 and Alekhine and Euwe were preparing for their rematch later that year, the Royal Dutch Chess Federation proposed that a super-tournament (AVRO) of ex-champions and rising stars should be held to select the next challenger. FIDE rejected this proposal and at their second attempt nominated Salo Flohr as the official challenger. Euwe then declared that: if he retained his title against Alekhine he was prepared to meet Flohr in 1940 but he reserved the right to arrange a title match either in 1938 or 1939 with José Raúl Capablanca, who had lost the title to Alekhine in 1927; if Euwe lost his title to Capablanca then FIDE's decision should be followed and Capablanca would have to play Flohr in 1940. Most chess writers and players strongly supported the Dutch super-tournament proposal and opposed the committee processes favored by FIDE. While this confusion went unresolved: Euwe lost his title to Alekhine; the AVRO tournament in 1938 was won by Paul Keres under a tie-breaking rule, with Reuben Fine placed second and Capablanca and Flohr in the bottom places; and the outbreak of World War II in 1939 cut short the controversy.

Birth of FIDE's World Championship cycle (1946–1948)
Alexander Alekhine died in 1946 before anyone else could win against him in match for the World Champion title. This resulted in an interregnum that made the normal procedure impossible. The situation was very confused, with many respected players and commentators offering different solutions. FIDE found it very difficult to organize the early discussions on how to resolve the interregnum because problems with money and travel so soon after the end of World War II prevented many countries from sending representatives. The shortage of clear information resulted in otherwise responsible magazines publishing rumors and speculation, which only made the situation more confusing. It did not help that the Soviet Union had long refused to join FIDE, and by this time it was clear that about half the credible contenders were Soviet citizens. But, realizing that it could not afford to be excluded from discussions about the vacant world championship, the Soviet Union sent a telegram in 1947 apologizing for the absence of Soviet representatives and requesting that the USSR be represented on future FIDE Committees. The eventual solution was very similar to FIDE's initial proposal and to a proposal put forward by the Soviet Union (authored by Mikhail Botvinnik). The 1938 AVRO tournament was used as the basis for the 1948 Championship Tournament. The AVRO tournament had brought together the eight players who were, by general acclamation, the best players in the world at the time. Two of the participants at AVRO – Alekhine and former world champion José Raúl Capablanca – had died; but FIDE decided that the championship should be awarded to the winner of a round-robin tournament in which the other six participants at AVRO would play four games against each other. These players were: Max Euwe, from the Netherlands; Botvinnik, Paul Keres and Salo Flohr from the Soviet Union; and Reuben Fine and Samuel Reshevsky from the United States. However, FIDE soon accepted a Soviet request to substitute Vasily Smyslov for Flohr, and Fine dropped out in order to continue his degree studies in psychology, so only five players competed. Botvinnik won convincingly and thus became world champion, ending the interregnum.

The proposals which led to the 1948 Championship Tournament also specified the procedure by which challengers for the World Championship would be selected in a three-year cycle: countries affiliated to FIDE would send players to Zonal Tournaments (the number varied depending on how many good enough players each country had); the players who gained the top places in these would compete in an Interzonal Tournament (later split into two and then three tournaments as the number of countries and eligible players increased ); the highest-placed players from the Interzonal would compete in the Candidates Tournament, along with whoever lost the previous title match and the second-placed competitor in the previous Candidates Tournament three years earlier; and the winner of the Candidates played a title match against the champion. Until 1962 inclusive the Candidates Tournament was a multi-cycle round-robin tournament – how and why it was changed are described below.

FIDE system (1949–1963)
The FIDE system followed its 1948 design through five cycles: 1948–1951, 1951–1954, 1954–1957, 1957–1960 and 1960–1963. The first two world championships under this system were drawn 12–12 – Botvinnik-Bronstein in 1951 and Botvinnik-Smyslov in 1954 – so Botvinnik retained the title both times.

In 1956 FIDE introduced two apparently minor changes which Soviet grandmaster and chess official Yuri Averbakh alleged were instigated by the two Soviet representatives in FIDE, who were personal friends of reigning champion Mikhail Botvinnik. A defeated champion would have the right to a return match. FIDE also limited the number of players from the same country that could compete in the Candidates Tournament, on the grounds that it would reduce Soviet dominance of the tournament. Averbakh claimed that this was to Botvinnik's advantage as it reduced the number of Soviet players he might have to meet in the title match. Botvinnik lost to Vasily Smyslov in 1957 but won the return match in 1958, and lost to Mikhail Tal in 1960 but won the return match in 1961. Thus Smyslov and Tal each held the world title for a year, but Botvinnik was world champion for rest of the time from 1948 to 1963.

The return match clause was not in place for the 1963 cycle. Tigran Petrosian won the 1962 Candidates and then defeated Botvinnik in 1963 to become world champion.

FIDE system (1963–1975)
After the 1962 Candidates, Bobby Fischer publicly alleged that the Soviets had colluded to prevent any non-Soviet – specifically him – from winning. He claimed that Petrosian, Efim Geller and Paul Keres had prearranged to draw all their games, and that Viktor Korchnoi had been instructed to lose to them. Yuri Averbakh, who was head of the Soviet team, confirmed in 2002 that Petrosian, Geller and Keres arranged to draw all their games in order to save their energy for games against non-Soviet players. Korchnoi, who defected from the USSR in 1976, never confirmed that he was forced to throw games. FIDE responded by changing the format of future Candidates Tournaments to eliminate the possibility of collusion.

Beginning in the next cycle, 1963–1966, the round-robin tournament was replaced by a series of elimination matches. Initially the quarter-finals and semi-finals were best of 10 games, and the final was best of 12. Fischer, however, refused to take part in the 1966 cycle, and dropped out of the 1969 cycle after a controversy at 1967 Interzonal in Sousse. Both these Candidates cycles were won by Boris Spassky, who lost the title match to Petrosian in 1966, but won and became world champion in 1969.

In the 1969–1972 cycle Fischer caused two more crises. He refused to play in the 1969 US Championship, which was a Zonal Tournament. This would have eliminated him from the 1969–1972 cycle, but Benko was persuaded to concede his place in the Interzonal to Fischer. FIDE President Max Euwe accepted this maneuver and interpreted the rules very flexibly to enable Fischer to play, as he thought it important for the health and reputation of the game that Fischer should have the opportunity to challenge for the title as soon as possible. Fischer crushed all opposition and won the right to challenge reigning champion Boris Spassky. After agreeing to play in Yugoslavia, Fischer raised a series of objections and Iceland was the final venue. Even then Fischer raised difficulties, mainly over money. It took a phone call from United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and a doubling of the prize money by financier Jim Slater to persuade him to play. After a few more traumatic moments Fischer won the match 12½–8½.

An unbroken line of FIDE champions had thus been established from 1948 to 1972, with each champion gaining his title by beating the previous incumbent. This came to an end when Anatoly Karpov won the right to challenge Fischer in 1975. Fischer objected to the "best of 24 games" championship match format that had been used from 1951 onwards, claiming that it would encourage whoever got an early lead to play for draws. Instead he demanded that the match should be won by whoever first won 10 games, except that if the score reached 9–9 he should remain champion. He argued that this was more advantageous to the challenger than the champion's advantage under the existing system, where the champion retained the title if the match was tied at 12–12 including draws. Eventually FIDE deposed Fischer and crowned Karpov as the new champion.

Fischer privately maintained that he was still World Champion. He went into seclusion and did not play chess in public again until 1992, when Spassky agreed to participate in an unofficial rematch for the World Championship. Fischer won the 1992 Fischer–Spassky rematch decisively with a score of 10–5.

Karpov and Kasparov (1975–1993)
After becoming world champion by default, Karpov confirmed his worthiness for the title with a string of tournament successes from the mid 70s to the early 80s. He defended his title twice against ex-Soviet Viktor Korchnoi, first in Baguio, the Philippines, in 1978 (6–5 with 21 draws) then in Merano in 1981 (6–2, with 10 draws).

He eventually lost his title in 1985 to Garry Kasparov, whose aggressive tactical style was in sharp contrast to Karpov's positional style. The two of them fought five incredibly close world championship matches, the World Chess Championship 1984 (controversially terminated without result with Karpov leading +5 −3 =40), World Chess Championship 1985 (in which Kasparov won the title, 13–11), World Chess Championship 1986 (narrowly won by Kasparov, 12½–11½), World Chess Championship 1987 (drawn 12–12, Kasparov retaining the title), and World Chess Championship 1990 (again narrowly won by Kasparov, 12½–11½). In the five matches Kasparov and Karpov played 144 games with 104 draws, 21 wins by Kasparov and 19 wins by Karpov.

Split title (1993–2006)
In 1993, Nigel Short broke the domination of Kasparov and Karpov by defeating Karpov in the candidates semi-finals followed by Jan Timman in the finals, thereby earning the right to challenge Kasparov for the title. However, before the match took place, both Kasparov and Short complained of FIDE's mishandling of the prize pool in organizing the match, corruption in the leadership, and FIDE's failure to abide by their own rules, and split from FIDE to set up the Professional Chess Association (PCA), under whose auspices they held their match. In response, FIDE stripped Kasparov of his title and held a championship match between Karpov and Timman. For the first time in history, there were two World Chess Champions: Kasparov defeated Short and Karpov beat Timman.

FIDE and the PCA each held a championship cycle in 1993–1996, with many of the same challengers playing in both. Kasparov and Karpov both won their respective cycles. In the PCA cycle, Kasparov defeated Viswanathan Anand in the PCA World Chess Championship 1995. Karpov defeated Gata Kamsky in the final of the FIDE World Chess Championship 1996. Negotiations were held for a reunification match between Kasparov and Karpov in 1996–97, but nothing came of them.

Soon after the 1995 championship, the PCA folded, and Kasparov had no organisation to choose his next challenger. In 1998 he formed the World Chess Council, which organised a candidates match between Alexei Shirov and Vladimir Kramnik. Shirov won the match, but negotiations for a Kasparov–Shirov match broke down, and Shirov was subsequently omitted from negotiations, much to his disgust. Plans for a 1999 or 2000 Kasparov–Anand match also broke down, and Kasparov organised a match with Kramnik in late 2000. In a major upset, Kramnik won the match with two wins, thirteen draws, and no losses. At the time the championship was called the Braingames World Chess Championship, but Kramnik later referred to himself as the Classical World Chess Champion.

Meanwhile, FIDE had decided to scrap the Interzonal and Candidates system, instead having a large knockout event in which a large number of players contested short matches against each other over just a few weeks (see FIDE World Chess Championship 1998). Rapid and blitz games were used to resolve ties at the end of each round, a format which some felt did not necessarily recognize the highest-quality play: Kasparov refused to participate in these events, as did Kramnik after he won the Classical title in 2000. In the first of these events, in 1998, champion Karpov was seeded directly into the final, but he later had to qualify alongside the other players. Karpov defended his title in the first of these championships in 1998, but resigned his title in protest at the new rules in 1999. Alexander Khalifman won the FIDE World Championship in 1999, Anand in 2000, Ruslan Ponomariov in 2002, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov in 2004.

By 2002, not only were there two rival champions, but Kasparov's strong results – he had the top Elo rating in the world and had won a string of major tournaments after losing his title in 2000 – ensured even more confusion over who was World Champion. In May 2002, American grandmaster Yasser Seirawan led the organisation of the so-called "Prague Agreement" to reunite the world championship. Kramnik had organised a candidates tournament (won later in 2002 by Peter Leko) to choose his challenger. It was agreed that Kasparov would play the FIDE champion (Ponomariov) for the FIDE title, and the winner of that match would face the winner of the Kramnik–Leko match for the unified title. However, the matches proved difficult to finance and organise. The Kramnik–Leko match did not take place until late 2004 (it was drawn, so Kramnik retained his title). Meanwhile, FIDE never managed to organise a Kasparov match, either with 2002 FIDE champion Ponomariov, or 2004 FIDE champion Kasimdzhanov. Kasparov's frustration at the situation played a part in his decision to retire from chess in 2005, still ranked No. 1 in the world.

Soon after, FIDE dropped the short knockout format for a World Championship and announced the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005, a double round robin tournament to be held in San Luis, Argentina between eight of the leading players in the world. However Kramnik insisted that his title be decided in a match, and declined to participate. The tournament was convincingly won by the Bulgarian Veselin Topalov, and negotiations began for a Kramnik–Topalov match to unify the title.

Kramnik (2006–2007)
The World Chess Championship 2006 reunification match between Topalov and Kramnik was held in late 2006. After much controversy, it was won by Kramnik. Kramnik thus became the first unified and undisputed World Chess Champion since Kasparov split from FIDE to form the PCA in 1993. This match, and all subsequent championships, have been administered by FIDE.

Anand (2007–2013)
Kramnik played to defend his title at the World Chess Championship 2007 in Mexico. This was an 8-player double round robin tournament, the same format as was used for the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005. This tournament was won by Viswanathan Anand, thus making him the World Chess Champion. Because Anand's World Chess Champion title was won in a tournament rather than a match, a minority of commentators questioned the validity of his title. Kramnik also made ambiguous comments about the value of Anand's title, but did not claim the title himself then. (In a 2015 interview Kramnik dated the loss of his world championship title to his 2008 match against Anand rather than the 2007 tournament, and he likewise did not contradict an interviewer who dated it thus in a 2019 interview.) Subsequent world championship matches returned to the format of a match between the champion and a challenger.

The following two championships had special clauses arising from the 2006 unification. Kramnik was given the right to challenge for the title he lost in a tournament in the World Chess Championship 2008, which Anand won. Then Topalov, who as the loser of the 2006 match was excluded from the 2007 championship, was seeded directly into the Candidates final of the World Chess Championship 2010. He won the Candidates (against Gata Kamsky). Anand again won the championship match.

The next championship, the World Chess Championship 2012, had short knock-out matches for the Candidates Tournament. This format was not popular with everyone, and world No. 1 Magnus Carlsen withdrew in protest. Boris Gelfand won the Candidates. Anand won the championship match again, in tie breaking rapid games, for his fourth consecutive world championship win.

Carlsen (2013–2023)
Since 2013, the Candidates Tournament has been an 8-player double round robin tournament, with the winner playing a match against the champion for the title. Norwegian Magnus Carlsen won the 2013 Candidates and then convincingly defeated Anand in the World Chess Championship 2013.

Beginning with the 2014 Championship cycle, the World Championship has followed a 2-year cycle: qualification for the Candidates in the odd year, the Candidates tournament early in the even year, and the World Championship match later in the even year. This and the next two cycles resulted in Carlsen successfully defending his title: against Anand in 2014; against Sergey Karjakin in 2016; and against Fabiano Caruana in 2018. Both the 2016 and 2018 defences were decided by tie-break in rapid games.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the 2020 Candidates Tournament, and caused the next match to be postponed from 2020 to 2021. Carlsen again successfully defended his title, defeating Ian Nepomniachtchi in the World Chess Championship 2021.

Ding (2023–present)
Soon after the 2021 match, Carlsen indicated that he would not defend the title again. This was confirmed in an announcement by FIDE on 20 July 2022. As a consequence, the top two finishers of the Candidates Tournament, Ian Nepomniachtchi and Ding Liren, played in the 2023 championship in Astana, Kazakhstan, from 7 April to 30 April 2023. Ding won, making him the first World Chess Champion from China. FIDE referred to Ding as the "17th World Champion"; thus the "Classical" line of Champions during the split has been de facto legitimised over the FIDE line by FIDE itself. The next world championship will be held in 2024, in which Ding will defend his title against the challenger Gukesh D.

Format
Until 1948, world championship contests were arranged privately between the players. As a result, the players also had to arrange the funding, in the form of stakes provided by enthusiasts who wished to bet on one of the players. In the early 20th century this was sometimes an obstacle that prevented or delayed challenges for the title. Between 1888 and 1948 various difficulties that arose in match negotiations led players to try to define agreed rules for matches, including the frequency of matches, how much or how little say the champion had in the conditions for a title match and what the stakes and division of the purse should be. However these attempts were unsuccessful in practice, as the same issues continued to delay or prevent challenges. There was an attempt by an external organization to manage the world championship from 1887 to 1889, but this experiment was not repeated until 1948.

After the death of world champion Alexander Alekhine in 1946, the World Chess Championship 1948 was a one-off tournament to decide a new world champion.

Since 1948, the world championship has mainly operated on a two or three-year cycle, with four stages:

 * 1) Zonal tournaments: different regional tournaments to qualify for the following stage. Qualifiers from zonals play in the Interzonal (up to 1993), knockout world championship (1998 to 2004) or Chess World Cup (since 2005).
 * 2) Candidates qualification tournaments. From 1948 to 1993, the only such tournament was the Interzonal. Since 2005, the Interzonal has mainly been replaced by the Chess World Cup. However extra qualification events have also been added: the FIDE Grand Prix, a series of tournaments restricted to the top 20 or so players in the world; and the Grand Swiss tournament. Since 2023, the Grand Prix has been replaced by the FIDE Circuit, making many more tournaments (not only those organised by FIDE) contribute towards Candidates qualification. In addition, a small number of players sometimes qualify directly for the Candidates either by finishing highly in the previous cycle, on rating, or as a wild card.
 * 3) The Candidates Tournament is a tournament to choose the challenger. Over the years it has varied in size (between 8 and 16 players) and in format (a tournament, a set of matches, or a combination of the two). Since the 2013 cycle it has always been an eight-player, double round-robin tournament.
 * 4) The championship match between the champion and the challenger.

There have been a few exceptions to this system:
 * In the 1957 and 1960 cycles, a rule existed which allowed the champion a rematch if he lost the championship match, leading to the 1958 and 1961 matches. There were also one-off rematches in 1986 and 2008.
 * The 1975 world championship was not held, as the champion (Fischer) refused to defend his title; his challenger (Karpov) became champion by default.
 * There were many variations during the world title split between 1993 and 2006. FIDE determined the championship by a single knockout tournament between 1998 and 2004, and by an eight-player tournament in 2005; meanwhile, the Classical world championship had no qualifying stages in 2000, and only a Candidates tournament in its 2004 cycle.
 * A one-off match to reunite the world championship was held in 2006.
 * The 2007 world championship was determined by an eight-player tournament instead of a match.
 * The 2023 world championship was played between the top two finishers of the Candidates, as the champion (Carlsen) refused to defend his title.

World Champions by number of title match victories
The table below organises the world champions in order of championship wins. A successful defense counts as a win for the purposes of this table, even if the match is drawn. The table is made more complicated by the split between the "Classical" and FIDE world titles between 1993 and 2006. If total number of championship wins is identical, the number of wins at undisputed championships, the number of years as undisputed champion, the number of years as champion are used as tie-breakers (in that order). If all numbers are the same, the players are listed by year of first victory at world championships (in chronological order).

Other world chess championships
Restricted events: Other time limits:
 * Women's World Chess Championship
 * World Junior Chess Championship (under 20 years of age)
 * World Youth Chess Championship (lower age groups)
 * World Senior Chess Championship
 * World Amateur Chess Championship
 * World Rapid Chess Championship
 * World Blitz Chess Championship
 * World Correspondence Chess Championship

Teams:
 * Chess Olympiad

Computer chess:
 * World Computer Chess Championship

Chess Problems:
 * World Chess Solving Championship

Chess variants:
 * World Chess960 Championship (Fischer random chess)

title: World Chess Championship


text:
Heavy weapons platoon

Heavy weapons platoon (HWP) is a term from military science which refers to an infantry platoon equipped with machine guns, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, flamethrowers, grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons, or any other weapons that are portable but heavier than a single infantryman can reasonably transport and operate by themselves for combat, generally a crew-served weapon. Heavy weapons platoons are grouped into a weapons company or maneuver support company, which focuses on moving and using heavy weapons to support light infantry rifle companies armed with standard-issue small arms.

British Army

In the British Army, the manoeuvre support company possesses an Anti-Tank platoon armed with 8 Javelin missile launchers, a reconnaissance platoon, a mortar platoon (with eight 81 mm mortars), an assault pioneer platoon, and, in the case of Light Role battalions, a machine gun platoon (with nine FN MAG general purpose machine guns).

U.S. Army regulations
According to U.S. Army regulations 320-5 (AR 320-5) "heavy weapons" are all "weapons such as mortars, howitzers, guns, heavy machineguns and recoilless rifles which are usually part of infantry equipment."

Size
As with most support units in any army, the size of a weapons platoon is generally smaller than that of its light infantry equivalent. For example, a typical light infantry platoon consists of 30 to 40 men divided in three or four squads (or sections) of 9–13 men, whereas a weapons platoon substitutes the squads with smaller groups for mortar teams, machine gun crews, anti-tank teams etc. Some platoons also include the assault element of a company. A company's weapons platoon will carry portable support weapons by sections, but also include a fast-attack light-infantry specialist squad of soldiers trained for breaching, raiding, and close combat.

A heavy weapon platoon is generally used as a support group to a number of other platoons in the immediate command area/zone in question. A ratio of one heavy platoon to three basic infantry platoons is the accepted number, anything above or below this may result in a specialised "company" such as a rifle company, or a long-range support company. The addition of a HWP can greatly increase the chances of victory in a combat zone, due to the unique specialist abilities the soldiers in that group can offer to the company.

In more modern times, the application of heavy weapon support groups has increased. The ability to provide covering fire, and the suppression tactics of the heavy platoon mean that it is better equipped to give cover, and forms a vital component to the overall success, supporting the bulk of the company as they advance. The advancement in troop transportation has lessened the problems of re-locating heavy weaponry and large quantities of ammunition.

Example: US Army Weapons Platoon in WW2
A February 1944 Table of organization and equipment show the following details about a US Army WW2 weapons platoon:

 * A Rifle Company was made up of 3 Rifle Platoons and 1 Weapons Platoon.
 * A Weapons Platoon was made up of a six-man Headquarters, a Mortar Section and a Light Machine Gun Section.
 * The Platoon Headquarters was armed with a single .50 caliber M2 Browning heavy machine gun
 * The Mortar Section was made up of a two-man HQ and three five-man squads, each squad armed with a single 60mm M2 mortar - a total of 17 men and 3 Mortars.
 * The Light Machine Gun Section was made up of a two-man HQ and two five-man squads, each squad armed with a single .30 caliber M1919 Browning machine gun - a total of 12 men and 2 machine guns.
 * A full-strength Weapons platoon had 35 men in total with one officer. Apart from the special weapons, 16 of these men were issued with the light M1 carbine and 9 being issued the heavier M1 Garand rifle. 5 of those armed with the M1 rifle were also issued with the M7 grenade launcher. The remaining 10 men were armed with the M1911 pistol as their sidearm.

title: Heavy weapons platoon