Recently I've been working almost exclusively in the Chess Wikiproject to improve articles in List of chess topics.
Although I'm not a strong chess player, I have a fair library of chess books that I can use for research.
Aside from some article work I can do using the dead tree references I have at hand, I mostly focus on work that can be assisted by writing simple programs, for example, plumbing FIDE data for information on grandmasters or comparing articles under Category:Chess to pages listed in WP:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess articles.
Since I started editing Wikipedia in 2005 it's probably inevitable that I have changed my opinion on a few matters, but looking at old Talk pages I find that sometimes I advocated positions that I don't hold now and don't even remember having held previously. Some examples:
In April through May 2018 there was extensive discussion at WT:CHESS concerning "Notable games" sections in chess bios. I didn't remember that this had ever been discussed at WT:CHESS before, but in 2007 I wrote "Personally I think that our "Notable games" sections aren't really appropriate". Most chess Notable games sections were bad in 2007 because they weren't sourced and didn't describe what is notable about the games. A decade later there are many more chess bios and many more notable games sections, nearly all of them bad for the same reasons they've always been bad. Even though there's been no real sign of improvement over a very long period, today I don't reject the idea of the notable games section itself and I don't remember ever having opposed it. The bad notable games sections should be improved or removed, but I think we should try to have good notable games sections in as many chess bios as we can.
I have noticed several bios of politicians, etc. are in Category:Dutch chess players when no mention is made anywhere in the article of chess. I wonder if someone editing Dutch biographies has used the Dutch chess players category to indicate that the bio is of someone notable who happens to play chess, rather than the correct use of the category for people notable as chess players. Need to ask if we have a chess editor familiar with Dutch chess who can sort this. Also it's possible that if these articles are based on https://nl.wikipedia.org/ then the Dutch Wikipedia might choose to use its Category:Chess players by nationality subcats more liberally and non-chess editors on en.wikipedia couldn't be expected to know that.
Just looked at Johan van Hulst which is a good indication that my concerns may be unfounded since he is a Dutch former politician who won a chess tournament at age 95.
Ciudad de Dos Hermanas (I don't know the history, but I think there are several of these, perhaps not all encyclopedic. The 14 rapid events through 2008 probably are.)
A little bit about New York City chess clubs in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Dec. 18, 1887, p. 10: "The following are the addresses of the chess clubs now in active operation in New York and Brooklyn: In New York—Manhattan Chess Club, 22 East Seventeenth street; Columbia Chess Club, 156 Second avenue; Jeffersonian Chess Club, 101 West Tenth street; La Bourdonnais Chess Club, Columbia College; Turn Verelu [sp?] Schach Club, 66 East Fourth street. In Brooklyn—Brooklyn Chess Club, 109 Montague street; Philidor Chess Club, Meserole and Lorimer streets."
An account of living chess (called animated chess here), this performance said to be the first of its kind in NYC: Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 11, 1883, p. 6.