Talk:Chess/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

"Orthochess"

I don't think I'm the only one who dislikes this term, the game is called chess. I never even heard of the term "orthochess" until I saw it cropping up on wikipedia and it gets no hits on google ngram. [1]. It is not a term that is commonly used or accepted by chess players, just a jargon term invented by David Pritchard who evidently prefers chess variants to the traditional game. Bold edit reverted. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The Oxford History of Board Games, David Parlett (1999), is pretty much thought of as the modern successor to Murray's A History of Chess (1918) A History of Board-Games other than Chess (1978). (I only say that as part of demonstrating it is a WP:Reliable source, w/o question.) From p. 276:

Western culture regards Chess as a particular game with a particular set of rules governed by an international authority (FIDE—the Fédération Internationale des Echecs). Variously known as International Chess, World Chess, Orthochess, and so on, [...]

Chess is (supposed to be) an encyclopedic article, so your personal like/dislike of term orthochess, and whether or not you've heard it, isn't relevant. And what is commonly used/accepted by chess players governs article name (WP:COMMONNAME), but not name synonyms existing in published RSs, listed in the infobox. Whether chess players are "commonly familiar" with term orthochess is also not a standard for inclusion in an encyclopedic article (if it were, then we s/ probably delete the article's chess history section, since most chess players are probably not very familiar w/ the origins of chess, either). You've additionally made assertions that David Pritchard (chess player) "doesn't like chess very much" and "invented term orthochess" and "is not noted as a chess player" ... wow, relevance aside, do you have any WP:RS ref(s) to support any of those assertions? (Didn't think so.) IHTS (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Orthochess is obviously a combined term (orthodox + chess). This entry exists in The Oxford Companion to Chess, Hooper & Whyld (1987), p. 235:

ORTHODOX CHESS, the game played in accordance with the laws, as distinct from the many variants of the game known collectively as UNORTHODOX CHESS.

IHTS (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

And just how good is the Google Ngram Viewer, when it comes up w/ zero hits for "Alice Chess"? [2] IHTS (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:UNDUE comes into it with regard to whether or not the term should be included in the infobox. It can be mentioned in the section on chess variants. This is just a courtesy reply really, I don't want to get into a back and forth cause we both know that doesn't get us anywhere. I'm going to wait for other opinions. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe WP:UNDUE applies to substance within the article body, not a list of game name synonyms. In any event, I don't think there's ever been discussion regarding entrance requirements to article name synonyms listed in infoboxes. (For example, "Paris Defence" was objected to as article name; it was the only/best referenceable/verifiable name I could find at the time, until I discovered the more proper name Semi-Italian Opening, upon which I put the "Paris Defence" synonym into the infobox along w/ other synonym opening names. Look how many synonym game names exist for Jungle (board game) - no one has ever made case against any of them for being "undue" - they are all verifiable/reliably source-able names. Ditto the plethora of game name synonyms that are verifiable/reliably source-able for Nine Men's Morris. Alternate names are sometimes used in literature, it would seem helpful to readers to include that knowledge in the infobox synonyms list (as well as creating #REDIRECTs for them to the article name), I've never ascribed a "weight" requirement for infobox synonyms list, as mentioned I don't think anyone else has either (ditto to #REDIRECTs), until this thread. Ok, IHTS (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I included the following to the Chess#Variants sec some time ago: "In the context of chess variants, regular (i.e. FIDE) chess is sometimes referred to as orthochess (orthodox chess)." Ok, IHTS (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"Orthochess" isn't mentioned in any of the chess dictionaries and encyclopedias that I own, although as IHTS notes, The Oxford Companion to Chess has an entry for "orthodox chess". I don't have a strong objection to having orthochess in the infobox, since apparently it's mentioned in at least one reliable source. Maybe "orthodox chess" should be added as another synonym. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done IHTS (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Do other games with variants have to be labelled "orthodox" in their infoboxes too? e.g. "orthodox checkers", "orthodox go", "orthodox shogi" etc? I think this introduces POV and undue weight into the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If that's what's found in the literature (WP:RSs) for another game, then yes. (If that's what's not found in the literature, then no.) I don't see how "POV/undue" has grounds w/ supporting RSs Parlett, Hooper & Whyld, above. IHTS (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the first time I've heard this term. Sounds like someone just wanting to claim a word for something. Brings to mind Kmoch's "Pawn Power in Chess" with the wide and unnecessary range of names for things. Jkmaskell (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Have any of Kmoch's names been given entries in The Oxford Companion to Chess or been listed in The Oxford History of Board Games? No. IHTS (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"Orthochess" is not in the Oxford Companion to Chess either, and it's quoted rather than used in the Oxford History of Board Games. Kmoch's terms at least get a mention in the entry on Kmoch. "Orthochess" is Pritchard's invented jargon term. It does not have wide acceptance among chess players or the general public and does not appear in reliable sources. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I can see why the term orthochess (contracted form for orthodox chess) got its standing. It's less cumbersome, less ambiguous, than any of the various alternative terms used in the many WP articles trying to convey the same thing using various other often home-spun terms: "traditional chess", "standard chess", "regular chess", "classic chess", "normal chess", "FIDE chess", "Western chess", and so on. (IMO "international chess" is the best of the alternatives, it has support in RSs, but it is also more cumbersome than "orthochess" for conveying the simple & exact thing: the chess as defined by current FIDE rules.) IHTS (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Where is this alleged "standing", given that very few sources actually use the term? MaxBrowne (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Two Oxford sources, and not good enough for you. Am not surprised and doubt there can be any convincing here, since you already pointed out, you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, assert w/o refs Pritchard "wasn't a chess player", "didn't like chess very much", etc. IHTS (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

One of your Oxford sources doesn't mention the term "orthochess" at all, the other merely quotes someone using it. If you must paraphrase me (and I'd rather you didn't) please don't put it in quotes. This is basic etiquette. The quote in the Oxford History of Board Games, incidentally, supports my claim that Pritchard prefers variants to "orthochess". MaxBrowne (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's what you wrote: "Pritchard, who doesn't seem to like chess very much" [3]; "Parlett is quoting pritchard, and neither are noted as chess players (just writers on games in general)" [4]. I believe both those statements to be untrue, and along w/ your other statement that Pritchard invented term "orthochess", besides all of it being off-topic, are nothing more than your opinions unsupported by any ref(s). I think you need to re-read from The Oxford History of Board Games above, because your spin on it, that Parlett "quotes someone using it", is just that (spin). (And you complain about someone misquoting *you*??) IHTS (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"The quote in the Oxford History of Board Games, incidentally, supports my claim that Pritchard prefers variants to "orthochess"." As mentioned irrelevant, and I believe untrue, but I'm not following at all. (What part of that quoted from that book supports what you say??) IHTS (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

So, I never wrote "wasn't a chess player" did I? If you put in quotes anything that is not an exact reproduction of what someone said, you are lying. Please understand this. Well, you'ver hammered on this over and over. I was mistaken that Prtichard is not noted as a chess player; this is also irrelevant.
I think the lack of use in other sources is strong evidence that Pritchard invented the term "orthochess". This is also reflected in the lack of hits on google ngram - try term's like "Queen's Bishop" and you'll get plenty of hits, on "orthochess", nada. The quote I am referring to is on page 312 of the Oxford History of Board Games. "Furthermore, as David Pritchard remarks,3 'Orthochess as a game is far from perfect, its present form the result of a series of changes that are part of the natural development of any enduring game. Theoretically at least, there are several good C(hess) V(ariant)s that are as good as, and possibly better than, orthochess.'" So there's my evidence that Pritchard preferred variants to chess. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Now you're suggesting I was "lying". Great. The value of your Google ngram searching was already addressed in this thread. Your "I think (Pritchard invented term orthochess)", besides being irrelevant, is pure WP:OR. Your conclusion that Pritchard "doesn't seem to like chess very much", isn't supported by what he actually said, and is your "spin" on what he said. (I'm sure his wife wasn't perfect either, but that he loved her. Why does recognizing something as imperfect require that it isn't liked very much [or recognizing something as perfect require that it be liked]? Again, besides being irrelevant, and I'm sure wrong, it's your pure WP:OR/spin.) IHTS (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The "OR" policy applies only to article space, it is perfectly valid to do "original research" when discussing content. Based on the evidence I have seen (lack of use in other sources), it is reasonable to conclude that Pritchard invented the term "orthochess". I'm not putting that in article space, just using it as evidence that the term "orthochess" does not have general acceptance and should not be given a prominent place (like the infobox) in the chess article.
And yes, putting in quotes and attributing to someone something they didn't say is lying. I know that's a strong word but it's apt. You need to cut that shit out, understand? MaxBrowne (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You're really pushing the personal attack stuff, I suggest you're the one who needs to cut it out, not me. Back to discussion, you're still making up your own policy. There isn't a requirement of "general acceptance" for a game name synonym to be listed in the infobox synonyms list. The only requirement is that the syonyms listed s/b able to be reliably sourced & verifiable. For an example article you took great interest in to "set right" regarding listed synonyms, Danvers Opening, are all the synonym names that passed your inspection/tests for inclusion in the infobox, in "wide use" with "general acceptance" and hold "promient place (in the infobox)"?? Come on.: Kentucky Opening, Queen's Attack, Queen's Excursion, Wayward Queen Attack, Patzer Opening, Parham Attack.) IHTS (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As already mentioned in this thread, the take that there is requirement for the infobox synonyms list, that each listed synonym be "widely used", isn't a requirement, it's never been discussed on the WP before. So you're basically making that up. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the synonyms list for chess opening names, doesn't have that requirement, only that the synonyms can be reliably & verifiably sourced. "AKA/Also known as" does not equate to "widely known as". (See some of the examples I listed above. Probably few or none of the synonyms in those examples are "widely used".) IHTS (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Still you refuse to acknowledge a simple point of etiquette. Do not ever put in quotes and attribute to someone something that they didn't say. This is the very definition of lying. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. And get off it, Max. IHTS (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll "get off it" if you do the decent thing and strike the instances where you put in quotes and attributed to me things that I didn't say. Because I find that practice throughly objectionable. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You're being absurd, off-topic, and levying personal attacks. IHTS (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop. Putting. Quotes. Around. Things. I. Never. Said. Do you understand?????? 14:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You've off-base. IHTS (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Orthochess" is an abortion. The Google ngram test is a good way to determine written usage of an English word or phrase, especially in the 20th century. Another test is to search Google books, which gives only four hits in the 25 million books Google has scanned: Popular Chess Variants (Pritchard 2000), Oxford History of Board Games (Parlett 1999), and two hits from 1992—a book by Schmittberger on variant rules for well-known games and a column on Avalanche Chess in CL&R. It's likely that Encyclopedia of Chess Variants (Pritchard 2001) uses "orthochess", but Google books doesn't seem to have scanned it. It's possible that The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants (Beasley 2007) uses the term, as even though Google books knows about it the text isn't searchable. The 2012 book, Characteristics of Games, uses the term "orthogame", but doesn't seem to explicitly use "orthochess". Even if these three were included as uses, "orthochess" is an extremely uncommon term and is used only in the context of chess variants. Curious then that the Wikipedia chess variant article doesn't use "orthochess" even once. If the term is really that important you would expect to see it in Wikipedia in the only context in which it ever gets used, although even in that context it's exceedingly rare. Still, perhaps it isn't surprising that the Wikpedia page on chess variants sees no need to use "orthochess" since almost no one anywhere has had any need for a strange term for what the English-speaking world universally calls simply "chess". "Orthochess" really should be defined in the chess variant article before it gets put in chess, but there isn't as much fun putting your stamp on a less popular article. All that said, I think four mentions of the term might be sufficient to keep it in this article, although it isn't really one of the most important things a reader should know about chess. (Less important items don't belong in this large, main article. That's what the rest of the pages in Category:chess are for.) The footnote should be moved from the infobox to the mention in the article body, which is very appropriately placed in the section on chess variants. Quale (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said it comes down to WP:UNDUE. From the relevant policy page: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emphasis mine). Putting a small minority term in an article's infobox is giving it undue prominence of placement; many casual readers will read only the infobox, or maybe the infobox and the lead. The "view" being presented here is that "orthochess" is a synonym for chess. It is not; it is a rare jargon term used by a specialist group but not by the wider chess community. A case could even be made for saying the term doesn't belong in the chess article at all: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.". You wouldn't expect to find specialist terms like "Babson task" in the main chess article. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I see the merit in that argument. While it's clear that "orthochess" is a term used by a very few people, it's possible that it's too rare to warrant mention in this article. Quale (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Quale, ""Orthochess" really should be defined in the chess variant article before it gets put in chess, but there isn't as much fun putting your stamp on a less popular article." WP:Bad faith much!? (As if I edit for the "fun" of putting "my stamp" on articles. Yeah. The bottom of the infobox, last synonym listed, in lower-case. [Am I famous yet!? Oh boy oh boy oh boy. Right.]) As mentioned, WP chess variant articles use an assortment of home-spun terms, including "traditional chess", "standard chess", "regular chess", "classic chess", "normal chess", "ordinary chess", "FIDE chess", "Western chess", and so on. In future for WP, perhaps it would be better if one term/phrase could be used instead, for consistency/simplicity inter-article. I don't know, but probably "orthodox chess" (short form orthochess, and yes it has entry in both Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, but I haven't pressed that, since MaxBrowne has scoffed at Pritchard's credentials stating he wasn't a noted chess player, and doesn't like classical chess very much, both baseless speculations and untrue, yet irrelevant, since Pritchard is the modern expert re chess variants). One thing at a time. It would be too massive and undue at this point to try and reduce non-FIDE chess references to one term. (BTW what term would you choose, "orthodox chess"? "international chess"? As mentioned above, my own view is that orthochess, perhaps created by expert Pritchard I don't know, is probably the cleanest, shortest, most encyclopedic term if one term would be replicated throughout the WP. But that's my view, and I can see why the inventor, if there is one or whomever it is, contracted "orthodox chess" to "orthochess". It's just less cumbersome. And the term exists significantly enough to be among the few synonym terms Parlett lists in The Oxford History of Board Games. And again, there is no MOS requirement for {{Infobox game}} AKA/Synonyms parm, no "wide use" requirement (I added the AKA parm to that template, so I s/ know; I followed suit to the same parm in template {{Infobox chess opening}}, and clearly no "wide use" requirement is present there, only a verifiable/sourceable ref), so are we making up that requirement on the fly because you think it is an "abortion" and MaxBrowne WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? Did the "wide use" criteria steer user MaxBrowne when he carefully cleaned up the infobox synonyms list in article Danvers Opening? No. Again, just at least one verifiable/sourcable RS. IHTS (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Quale, ""orthochess" is [...] used only in the context of chess variants". I agree of course, adding text saying as much in sec Chess#Variants. But that's not the point. And, the same is true of all the synonyms names listed in the Chess infobox. And "World chess" can't be too common, is probably just as rarely used, and I don't see you guys throwing up all over that term. IHTS (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Quale, also curious how you can have such a cow over "orthochess", but be completely fine with "orthodox chess". (Is it because the latter has entry in Oxford Companion to Chess? But for some reason you don't like The Oxford History of Board Games, or entries in two Pritchard encyclopedias, as acceptable refs/authoritative sources?! For fundamentally the same term, 'orthodox' + 'chess'?!) IHTS (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Read it. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have. Without your spin. IHTS (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the content from Schmittberger, R. Wayne (1992). New Rules for Classic Games. John Wiley & Sons Inc. p. 186. ISBN 978-0471536215. which you referred to:

The form of chess most people know—which is sometimes referred to as Western chess, orthodox chess, or orthochess—is itself just one of many that have been played throughout history.

Schmittberger is a noted board games expert and reliable source, and the book above was published two years before Pritchard's first encyclopedia Encyclopedia of Chess Variants was published. IHTS (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@IHTS, you are the dictionary definition of bad faith on WP, both in assuming it of others and displaying it yourself (partly by immediately assuming it of others). You also carefully avoided answering why "orthochess" doesn't appear in the chess variants article by deflecting everything to be about how awful I am. We have an article on chess variants, so if this term is so damned important to the chess variants community then why is it not in that article? It wasn't really a question for you anyway, so it doesn't require an answer.

Now that that's out of the way, I'm not a fan of "orthochess" because 1) it's never used by anyone outside of variant chess, and it's bloody rare even there as shown by Google ngrams and Google books (although anyone familiar with the chess literature would know this already), and 2) it's ugly beyond description. Oddly chess variant authors don't seem to to call their games "unorthochess". I'm find with "orthodox chess" for the same reason that I'm fine with "unorthodox chess", and it is an important distinction that "unorthodox chess" is a term that is reported by mainstream chess writers like Hooper & Whyle. I should note that "orthodox chess" and "orthochess" are both worthless as terms to distinguish International chess and its variants from the Asian varieties. The latter is generally a more interesting distinction, since the number of players of Xiangqi and Shogi must each individuall dwarf all players of all varieties unorthodox chess put together. I've read a lot by authors who are experts on chess, not merely board games in general, and I've never seen any chess experts use "orthochess". For example, "orthochess" isn't in any of the encyclopedic works I have about chess (Hooper & Whyld, Golumbek, Brace, Horton, or Sunnucks), and they discuss chess variants. Schmittberger is a reliable source, but when he writes "sometimes refered to as ... orthochess", the truth is that "sometimes" is "never by any expert who likes chess, and only exceedingly rarely by a few people who prefer variants". If that isn't true, present some sources other than Schmittberger and Pritchard. I find suspect the need in the English language to label "chess" anything other than simply "chess". Chess variants already have their own individual names, entirely for the purpose of distinguishing them from that little known thing that some English-speaking people call chess. If I were writing in a language other than English, International chess, world chess, etc. might be important. Quale (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Quale, you suggested my edits were "for fun" and for purpose to "put [my] mark on the article". If that's not WP:BADFAITH, I don't know what is. (So how do you respond? You ignore my objection, and instead accuse me of being a WP:BADFAITH editor, w/o substantiation [in a forum not equipped for that anyway].) ¶ With that out of the way, I agree w/ "I find suspect the need in the English language to label "chess" anything other than simply "chess".", as explained below in reply to MaxBrowne. ¶ To reply to your other stuff, no, I didn't "carefully avoid" responding to your earlier insistence that term orthochess must be put in article Chess variants "first", I simply didn't find that argument worth responding to. (There's no precedent of "order" requirement in improving WP articles that I know of, and for you to edict such a contingency is out of place. Also I've worked on Chess variants article quite a lot over time, there were other more basic priorities there for improving the article, than anything to do with term simplification for when referring to "chess". So I never really got to that phase or step, I'm sure I would have eventually, but it wasn't in my thoughts or priorities to evolve the article to better shape. [I suppose term orthochess could have unproblematically been added to the lede, but again my focus at the article was dealing with what was there, to evolve it out of bad shape. E.g. a next step/phase in mind was to examine RSs, provide where missing, delete where none can be found, since the article seems to have entry requirement of notable variants only. {BTW, I've withdrawn from further editing that article in May.} So to suggest I "carefully avoided" your Q is wrong, I can see the logic of your work management edict, but you're not the editor who's been actually doing the work, or managing my efforts. Since the tiny Chess#Variants sec and tiny infobox synonyms list were nothing of that nature [not in bad shape needing evolutionary improvement], I didn't see it the same way, simple as that. So I didn't "carefully avoid" your Q for clandestine purpose, as your bad faith seems to have told you.]) ¶ ""orthodox chess" and "orthochess" are both worthless as terms to distinguish International chess and its variants from the Asian varieties." Okay (but that's definitely not what Hooper & Whyld say in entry Orthodox chess), what term do you think would be better instead? ¶ Wow your attribution to Pritchard that he "doesn't like chess" or "prefers chess variants", is totally wrong, I don't know where you get that, except for typical bias lots of chessplayers have against variants. Pritchard: "Let me at once dispel a popular illusion: chess variants are not and were never intended to replace chess but rather to complement it." and "Two of the secrets of variant design are elegance and balance. The main attribute to look for in any good chess variant is elegance. An elegant game combines minimum rules with maximum strategy. Chess itself is a simple game to learn but its resulting strategy is profound. Any good chess variant should have similar elegance; [...]". should at least touch on/around what you've said (what you've said w/o substantiation). I haven't researched who employs term orthochess beyond Pritchard, because it wasn't necessary to do that to add it to a known list of synonyms, or state that the term is sometimes used. (Pritchard is the modern expert re chess variants, his consistent use of it was best choice IMO, he knows what he's doing. He knows his field better, I'm assuming, than any of the chess expert authors you didn't name who write about chess including variants. ¶ Ok I think that's everything, please, I think things are settled now? IHTS (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The term "international chess" is in fact standard in China and parts of Asia with Chinese populations, this is a direct translation of the Chinese name for the game ("international xiangqi" if you like). I first heard the term from a Singaporean. Even in this case, I would question whether the term needs to be in the infobox - it is already mentioned in the article. So my proposal is no "synonyms" at all in the infobox. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to put the Danvers Opening nonsense to rest, this article should have been deleted or merged with Open Games because the opening is non-notable and has no generally accepted name. All of the names in the infobox of that article are about equally valid and equally invalid ("Danvers Opening" just seemed to me slightly less invalid than the rest). Comparing this situation to the article on chess, which has one universally accepted name in English, is a false equivalence, and is essentially an ad hominem argument directed against me. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done I would agree w/ proposal "no "synonyms" at all in the infobox". (It makes sense. This turned out to be really a misapplication of AKA/synonyms list, since all the synonyms were "in context with [something else]", and I've never seen that before in a synonyms list application. If it was my mistake to start a chess synonyms list in the first place, and it does appear I did it and it was a misguided decision early on, the decision was in good-faith and w/o knowing these future ramifications [objections]. But the objections weren't correct either, attacking "no wide use" and Pritchard "doesn't like chess very much" and so on, when the misfire was instead as mentioned, the entire synonyms list was inherently a misapplication for the article. [And for that reason "false equivalence" w/ Danvers is also true, but it was nothing personal, at that time it simply seemed to me an inconsistency.]) IHTS (talk)

OK I feel bad now... (ratcheting down the rhetoric several notches). Does this seem like a reasonable resolution Quale? MaxBrowne (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Although it's very late (after I disappeared for a month), I want to apologize to Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs). I don't believe that he edits articles in bad faith and it wasn't my intent to suggest that, but I chose my words very poorly. I've always thought that IHTS edits chess articles only with the intent to improve them, and I have only ever been concerned with behavior on talk and project pages. I have agreed with almost all of his edits on chess articles, and those relatively cases few where we have disagreed were honest differences of opinion on how to best improve an article. I regret the wording I used, and I would retract that statement if I could. Quale (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers, IHTS (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2016

text removed by User:ArglebargleIV.

Wolawili (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• The above text was copied from http://www.anusha.com/origin.htm, a copyrighted work by Sam Sloan. I decided to remove it due to copyright concerns. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User boxes

Hi, I created these two Chess.com userboxes for you if you want them :)

This user plays on Chess.com as {{{1}}} .

Template:User Chess.com1

This user is a member of Chess.com.

Template:User Chess.com

@IQ125: Thanks for making these. I've already incorporated them.

Checks Facts _{Happy to talk}

21:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Glad to help :) IQ125 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Set up time in info box

"1 minute"? Under tournament conditions, where a plastic board has to be unrolled, flattened and oriented, pieces unpacked from a box and sorted into colors, then pieces set up, I think one minute would be scrambling. Maybe 2-3 minutes is more like it. How about saying 1-3 minutes here?Sbalfour (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC) @Sbalfour:

1. Why do people find this so important? I'm pretty sure we've had people dissecting this before.
2. If you can't set up a chess board in less than a minute then you must not know where the pieces go. Quale (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Experienced players can definitely set up in under a minute. I don't see any need to change it.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

32 pieces, probably takes me about 1 second per piece. Less than a minute seems about right. Since nobody actually gives a crap maybe we can remove it? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't miss it...--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Moral panic

Chess was once the subject of a moral panic.

Benjamin (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to add that to the article? Maybe in the History section? :) The Land (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/matchesTournaments/london1851.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eamonnoneill.net/articles/Josh%20Waitzkins.PDF
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/if/fi_uk.asp?Id_federation=44
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5oFLE7Mgx?url=http://archive.computerhistory.org/projects/chess/related_materials/text/2-0 to http://archive.computerhistory.org/projects/chess/related_materials/text/2-0%20and%202-1.Programming_a_computer_for_playing_chess.shannon/2-0%20and%202-1.Programming_a_computer_for_playing_chess.shannon.062303002.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freakonomics.com/pdf/DeliberatePractice%28PsychologicalReview%29.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2017

Modern day chess clocks.

Jv2080 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2017

Change the "Modern Day Chess Clock" picture from the current one to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Modern_Day_Chess_Clocks.jpg Jv2080 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2017

101.60.85.62 (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 14:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Rules

The reason I wrote, "The rules summarized in this section are those published by FIDE", rather than something simpler, was that there are multiple chess governing bodies that publish rules, some of them differing in small ways from those of FIDE, sometimes deliberately. For example, the FIDE rules regarding the Fifty-move rule have a history of revision, which was by no means tracked by the rules published by other federations, such as the U.S.

Over the years, FIDE has improved its own set of rules, to the point where other federations are more willing to keep up with changes made by FIDE, but even so, there are points of divergence, which are not likely to entirely go away. Moreover, postal chess and online chess are not generally sanctioned by FIDE, and rules used by their organizing bodies can easily diverge (an example is the postal chess organization that has no use for the fifty-move rule, as cited elsewhere in the article).

So I thought that the language that I used would effectively warn the reader that the situation is not trivially simple. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I accept that. I think the rules differences are rather minor and the number of readers who would be interested in this general article who would care about esoterica such as differences in the 50 move rule must be vanishingly small. I could of course be wrong. I actually think the rules section is too long and detailed for this article. I would prefer a much shorter summary with readers directed to rules of chess if they want all the details. If you would like to restore your original wording or something similar, I have no objection. Quale (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave the sentence in its current simplified form.

As for the length and detail of the rules section, I can see that there is room for improvement. Comparing Chess and Rules of chess with analogous articles for other games, ours seem kind of unbalanced. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I just skimmed the rules section and I don't think it's as bad as I made it out to be. A lot of the vertical space is used by diagrams demonstrating how the pieces move, and that's essential for this article. If you or another editor can find a way to trim the rules section a bit that would be great, but it doesn't seem urgent. Quale (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I will consider, first, distinguishing between rules involving chess clocks and tournament directors, and rules that don't involve them. The FIDE (and USCF) rules just lump all the rules together, because they're only interested in their own sanctioned events. But for the purpose of an encyclopedia article about Chess, the rule about winning on time, or the rule about a director being allowed to call a draw after 75 moves without pawn move or capture, are of peripheral interest; they might be left out altogether (and included in Rules of chess), or put in a separate section.

As for the diagrams, they are cute, but I am skeptical. Looking at Poker, they only give a couple of examples of hands, and leave the detailed exposition of which poker hands are better than others to a separate Wiki article. I would like to take a similar approach, if it were possible. The rules of Chess are even more complicated than those of Poker, and our article gets bogged down there. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, you've convinced me that the rules in this article should only include the stuff you would expect to find in Hoyle or in a rules booklet that Hasbro might include with an inexpensive chess set. Time clocks deserve a mention in the article, but details of the tournament rules including timekeeping are probably not needed. Since I changed my mind so quickly I'm clearly wishy washy about this. I do think that rules are a more important part of chess than they are of poker, in part because there are many varieties of poker but basically only one variety of standard (Western) chess. Even so we have an entire article for the rules of chess. Any improvements you can make to the rules section in this article would be great. Quale (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607183513/http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Projects/MacQuarrie/Chapters/Ch4.html to http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Projects/MacQuarrie/Chapters/Ch4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest changing "Chess matches" to "Chess games" in section Time Control. Speling12345 (talk) 2:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Under the heading "Promotion" there seems to the no diagram as referenced in this sentence " In the diagram on the right, the pawn on c7 can be advanced to the eighth rank and be promoted to an allowed piece." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.192.68 (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It's referring to the (left half of) the animated diagram on the right. --IHTS (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Cheating in chess

Cheating in chess can be done by neurologically transferring the signals from the body/throat of a person by a chess-computer to a person playing chess against the one who is being cheated against. Wanna try it out?
I lack the references for now. Please forgive me. 82.164.42.11 (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

women and men

why are there separate women's titles? Or perhaps, why are the best players generally men and not women?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

As I'm sure is apparent, your second question answers your first question. The second question has received some attention but there is no universally accepted answer and I don't know that it has ever been investigated in a truly scientific way. It seems most likely to me that the causes are social rather than biological. If someone found some reliable sources on the issue it would be good to find or create an article that could give it an encyclopedic treatment. Quale (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC) And actually that could go in this article if a better place is not found. Quale (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

While looking for something else, I discovered that I was wrong to think that the question of differing levels of achievement in chess for men and women had not received serious academic attention. In and around 2014, Robert Howard studied this question. If you google "robert howard chess women" you will find some resources, and with some more effort you should be able to find his original publications. Here are a few links that look interesting. A search shows many other webpages, I list these here mostly in case someone decides to write something about this in a wikipedia article.

• https://en.chessbase.com/post/explaining-male-predominance-in-chess
• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691400261X
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7331640_How_intellectual_is_chess_-_A_reply_to_Howard

Quale (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2018

39.51.208.224 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK _Discuss 13:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

197.184.101.151 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Would it violate policy to simply remove content-less semi-protect edit requests from IP users? In both the cases above, the IP user has no other user contribution than adding these "requests".--Nø (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

When a redlinked IP editor such as 117.228.115.21 posts an empty edit request, I regard it as an editing test, post them a {{welcome-anon-test}} and remove the edit request. I have never heard anyone objecting to this. Sam Sailor 09:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice -- possible deletion of Flying Chess (and other variants)

The variant Flying Chess is being discussed for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying chess#Flying chess

and other variants: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess#Regarding the notability of chess variants

Please feel free to weigh in. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

IVC origin of chess

Logged in members, please include this reference on page 34 of "Chess and dice games" to denote Indus Valley Civilization origin of chess. Thanks. 2404:E800:E61E:452:7835:ABF1:C9FA:A4B9 (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Unfortunately I don't think that source is useful for this article. There is only a single sentence mentioning chess: "Games like 'pitthu', Chess, cubical dice and folk tales of Panchatantra have been found to exist since Harappan times." Earlier the article says that the Harappan civilization is about 8000 years old. Since chess is only about 1400 years old, that single imprecise sentence isn't a useful reference for anything about chess. The sources actually used in the article provide much better support for the Indian origin of chess. Quale (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Quale. Note that the predecessor of chess called Chaturanga has not been established to have any link with the Harappan specimen. The specimen from Harappa was similar to chess but there's no link to that and Chaturanga. It could have been just another board game. Yathish1618 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

218 moves

It says:

"Typically an average position has thirty to forty possible moves, but there may be as few as zero (in the case of checkmate or stalemate) or as many as 218."

It sort of sounds as if 218 is a feasible number in ordinary play, but, as far as I can gather, this 218 is an extreme contrived theoretical situation in which all pawns have been promoted to queens, such as would in practice never occur in actual play. I think this should be made clearer. 86.191.58.241 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Rescind FA status

This article was made FA more than 10 years ago! It can't be valid anymore. Wikipedia's standards have gone up, and this article has changed a lot. Kurzon (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kurzon: It was first promoted in... 2002, but it was last reviewed in 2010, if that helps any? But if you feel like it doesn't meet FA criteria anymore, there's always WP:FAR. LittlePuppers (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kurzon: Go ahead and kick off another featured article review. I don't think there's any problems with the article that can't be fixed. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Chess pieces, india 5th-6th century AD

chess pieces from india 5th-6th century AD 60.54.13.118 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Church and chess

Popularity of chess in Europe grows at the time of the Crusades. Europeans make some adjustments to movement of some pieces which makes the game more dynamic which bring about transformation of shatranj into modern chess around 1470.
Church at that time wasn't approving chess, putting it in the same category of vice as gambling and cards. Priests and monks were often forbidden from playing chess. First prohibition of that kind on record is from 1061 in Italy.

Unfortunately I don't have sources. But this kind of information would be great in the article. 213.149.62.70 (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources are necessary for inclusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is History section not the first section?

Is it because it's assumed that most people visiting this article are here for the rules? That goes against the neutrality of the Articles. I propose to reorder the sections to have History as the first section followed by the rest. --Yathish1618 (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting question. Looking around at other games, I found that Backgammon and Checkers have the History section far from the beginning, while Poker has it first (but it's only two sentences, and has a maintenance tag for being too short). Looking at sports, I found that Basketball, Hockey, Soccer, and Tennis have History first, while Baseball does not. I do not know why these articles are organized the way they are. I do not see how "neutrality" (I assume you mean WP:NPOV) is affected one way or the other. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What I meant by breaking neutrality is that the article may have been structured with the express intent of offering maximum utility to users (based on the assumption that most users come here mainly for rules of Chess). I don't know if that's actually the case. In any case, isn't it a logical progression to have history and origins as the first section (where available) immediately after lead section? I can't find any guidelines regarding the sequence of sections but that's what seems to make most sense to me. As an anecdote, I came here to read the history of chess and I thought it was missing since it wasn't even the second or third section. yathish1618 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that History should not be the first section because I don't think it provides the most utility for the majority of the readers of this article. Readers primarily interested in the history of chess are advised to go to History of chess. In this article I think a moderately detailed description of chess must come first, including the names and moves of the pieces and the key rules. It's difficult for a reader to understand even the outline of chess history given here without knowing this background. For example, the history section details some things about the term "check", castling, the move of the queen, stalemate, etc., and referring to these things early in the article before explaining them in an previous section seems like a profoundly bad idea to me. (Definition before use is usually better.) That said I think we could profitably discuss how to order the many sections in this article. At a glance I think the Notation, Strategy and Tactics, and Phases sections could be moved later in the article, and this would move History closer to the beginning. (Actually I think Strategy and Tactics section and the Phases section should be merged and rewritten, and Phases is a terrible section name.)

What do people think? These are the prose sections today:

1 Rules

2 Notation for recording moves

3 Strategy and tactics

4 Phases

5 History

6 Place in culture

7 Composition

8 Competitive play

9 Publications

10 Mathematics and computers

11 Psychology

12 Variants

My only real concern with having the Rules section first is that I think it would be great if the article could somehow give a sense of what game play is like without being bogged down in the minutia of the rules. (And a explanation of the rules doesn't give a very good sense of what chess play is like anyway.) Maybe this isn't really something that a wikipedia article is well suited to do. An online video for absolute beginners is probably the better way. Quale (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that because the history is tied up with changes in the rules, the Rules have to come before History.

Other than that I don't object to moving History forward. In fact, as I looked it over, each time I came to a new section, I wanted to move that section forward. They're all important! (Except, of course, that I agree that Phases should be merged with Strategy and Tactics.) But, unfortunately, if we move them all forward, we end up where we started :-) Bruce leverett (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A random suggestion. Notation doesn't have to be near the beginning. I learned this from talking to the author of Chess for Dummies, which was a best-seller. That book teaches notation at about chapter 20! Most casual readers don't care for the notation; it only is helpful for people who already have a serious commitment to chess. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Consensus to move history section after the rules then? I'll just go ahead and do it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking that the sections might be put in the order that they appear in our best version of the article lead paragraphs, but I'm not sure that's a helpful indicator. Description of play should be first (that's the Rules section), History should be early, Psychology should be near the end. Culture should be near History as the subjects have affinity. I think Strategy and tactics and Phases should be near the end too just because they're so poorly written. I suppose that means that if we improved them they could stay earlier. Quale (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• As Quale pointed out the history and culture sections are clearly interrelated, so I have moved the culture section next to the history section. I think these two sections should be merged, but this is quite a big job. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the History section should follow immediately after the lead (and having Culture section after that may make sense, though it might also make sense to have it much later). This view applies to articles like Backgammon, Checkers and Baseball as well.

Essentially I see two objections two moving History up:

1. History section refers to rules, so Rules must come first. Well, I disagree. It may require a little rewriting, but I don't think it is catastrophic if the History section mentions things that cannot be understood in detail by a chess novice till the Rules section has been perused. Nearly all chess terms used in the History section are introduced in the lead anyway, exceptions being "stalemate" and "castling" - and that, of course, could easily be fixed.
2. History section is long, so the rules that many readers may come for will be pushed way down. Again, I disagree. "Neutrality" may not be the right term for it, but I don't think we can decide what people come for; we just have to write a balanced and logically structured article. But, given we have a main article History of chess, perhaps the History section should be trimmed down.

By the way, when I view Wikipedia articles, the lead is always followed by a table of contents. I don't know if that is the case for all readers, but I think it means we can prioritize logical structure higher than giving what most readers come for first.--Nø (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Logical structure prohibits putting history before rules. The history section uses a lot of terms that are explained in the rules section. 02:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't use "a lot of terms", but it uses a few - and as I wrote most are introduced in the lead, making the history section perfectly readable on that background.--Nø (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

History discusses changes in the moves of the pawn and queen and the introduction of castling. No details of those moves are explained in the lead, nor should they be. On the other hand, I agree that the mention of rules changes in the history section is very brief. It is likely that most readers wouldn't feel very inconvenienced by encountering that brief small bit before the rules are explained. As a matter of the focus of the article, I think the primary goal should be to impart a sense of what chess is today. (For people who are less interested in what chess is today and want to know what chess was, we have history of chess.) Chess history is important, but in my view that isn't primarily what chess is. Chess is a board game, and the article emphasis should be on that. Other aspects shouldn't be ignored, but they shouldn't be pushed to the front to obscure that essential nature. Also the earliest history of chess is uncertain and at times speculative, and I think it's less than ideal to start the article with that. It seems more sound to begin the article with things that are less susceptible to alternative facts than is chess history. Quale (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"A few" and "brief" are somewhat understating the problem. All the subsections of the History section, except the last one, have at least a few references to the pieces, their moves, castling, etc. I would say that bringing these sections any farther forward has to be ruled out.

Re-reading the last subsection ("1945–present: Post-World War II era"), however, I realized that it's another aspect of history. It is largely the history of the World Championship (of which there is some more material in the previous section). It is quite readable to someone who doesn't know anything about the rules of the game. One could even envision detaching the history of the World Championship (and the personalities) into a section separate from the history of the rules and the history of the regional evolution of the game, and placing them separately. Just a thought. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Also there's a bit of illogic relying on the lead to acquaint w/ term(s) used in a body sec before defined: the lead (at least for large/mature articles) is supposed to be a summary which can "stand on its own"; therefore it's techincally despensible when reading. (WP:LEAD says most readers will read the lead of an article & nothing more. Ok. But consider if someone has sufficient time & decides they want to read the entire article ... They might very well then decide to skip the lead since they know it will be a summarization/duplication/redundancy to what they'll be reading. [So it'd be a logical choice to skip then; building reliance on the lead to feed understanding of a first-occuring sec defeats that choice.]) Intra-article links on term(s) seems workable but is probably not good writing. --IHTS (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2019

41.113.249.83 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: blank edit request. Highway 89 (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Broken reference link

Check note #8, reference 111, no apparent link to article text found for Turing Mark Silva 173.228.88.237 (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: I can find evidence supporting the note in the provided source. Danski454 (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"The O-O-O-O Lubek Castle"

off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A talk post titled "The O-O-O-O Lubek Castle" has been removed and added far too many times. (First posting: [5]; first removal [6] with edit summary "Banned editor"; second removal had edit summary "banned user, also, WP:NOTAFORUM".) For the reasons stated in those edit summaries, I believe it should stay removed. I hope anyone not happy with the situation after my present post will, rather than adding or removing the original post again, state reasons briefly here (not just in edit summaries that many apparently do not read).--Nø (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC) I think that it is appropriate to request semi-protection to prevent users from adding the inappropriate talk post. I will do that right now (unless someone protected this page already). LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 14:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on this article

I do not approve of the edit warring engaged in by Ihardlythinkso on this article and on his talk page. If someone disagrees, we discuss per WP:BRD, not simply revert it back. This editor has made no attempt to discuss on the talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If you take a look at many hundreds of WP chess articles, you'll see that diag markup is consistent w/ my edit you reverted. And, "six piece types" does not occur in the Chess article body, so it doesn't belong in the lead. Adding it to the body is just fine; go ahead and do it; or I'm happy to do if asked. But even if added to the body, it's still unnecessary detail, or trivial mention, for the lead. --IHTS (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Guess who changed "types of pieces" to "six piece types" in the article lead? *I* did, back in 2012: [7]. (I'm a much better editor now, than back then.) --IHTS (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it is unnecessary to point out in this sentence that there are six piece types, since they have already been enumerated earlier in the paragraph. Having said that, I admit that I had not noticed this stylistic issue, and would undoubtedly not have noticed it, had not IHTS decided to change it back. I guess I would vote for the version without "six", on the grounds that less is usually better.

Another edit revert, not already mentioned above, was adding/subtracting spaces in diagrams to make them "easier to read". I would normally not expect to read these in the source. You might say they are "write-only". Even if I were editing a diagram, I would check my work using the preview, not by trying to read it carefully. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

When editing a diag, before preview, it first must be "read" (visually digested re square contents). (That's what was meant by "easier to read".) (For the same reason, empty squares are better 2 spaces not 1.) --IHTS (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2019

 Done Under the title and ranking section, need to add the online chess trainer titles that are awarded by FIDE for the overall development of chess. They are FIDE Senior Trainer, FIDE Trainer, FIDE Instructor, National Instructor, Developmental Instructor. The URL is https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=42&view=category. Dev,pillai (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually I don't think we need to add that to the main topic article on chess. It's trivia that belongs in FIDE titles, so I moved it there. Quale (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with User:Quale. I do not see any notability. Can you name even one titled trainer/instructor? Do they ever get their names in the chess press? By comparison, this article doesn't mention arbiter titles, although there is a slightly stronger case for doing so, since IA's sometimes become notable. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

Change

"Chess is believed to be derived from the Indian game chaturanga sometime before the 7th century."

To "Chess is believed to be derived from the Tamil game sathurangam (சதுரங்கம்) before B.C 2600. Archeological excavation at Keezhadi reveals that chess was played using different sizes of Chessmen made of ivory and terracotta."

https://archive.org/details/20190921_20190921_2102 Gamalai27 (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Looking into this request, the sources I've found seem to say that it was a chess-like game, not chess as a modern observer would roughly understand it. Sceptre (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not think that that reply is quite sufficient. The description "a chess-like game, not chess as a modern observer would roughly understand it" might be applied to chaturanga as well (though, I suppose, much less so).

If the information about the Tamil game from 2600 BCE is valid, it is clearly inappropriate that neither the article Chess, nor History of chess, nor Chaturanga, traces the history of these games back to anything prior to 500 CE.

However, as the edit request stands, I agree with the conclusion (Not done). We need to quote valid sources. In fact, starting by writing a separate article Sathurangam might be the best approach.--Nø (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Seventy-five-move-rule description is unclear

"Seventy-five-move rule: Similar to the fifty-move rule; however, if the final move in the sequence resulted in checkmate, this takes precedence. As with the fivefold repetition rule, this applies independently of claims by the players, and allows a tournament director to intervene. This rule likewise is a recent addition to the FIDE rules."

What does this mean? If the final move is checkmate, what does a move-limit have to do with anything? This makes no sense. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betaneptune (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The FIDE rules say, "If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence". It's just as confusing there as it is here. Best to just leave that part out. I'll fix it when I get a chance, unless someone else gets there before me. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

What it means is just that: the game ends automatically when 75 moves pass without any captures or pawn moves. At that final position, a checkmate position wins and anything else draws (even if you have forced mate on the next move, unfortunately). It's just as automatic as the "dead position" rule that stops a game immediately once no legal sequence of moves can ever lead to checkmate (although sometimes illegal further moves are played anyway...). Double sharp (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

illegal moves

i dont see any discussion of what happens if an illegal move is played (like you move a piece to an incorrect square by accident). i actually dont even know if there is any official rule for this situation. (my understanding being that it varies depending on the tournament/venue – such as a time loss penalty in games with certain time controls?)

anyway, i just point this out since an illegal move results in a loss in shogi and i just wrote a comment on that page mentioning that this is generally not true in chess. But, i dont know the full range of resolutions in chess to making an illegal move, so i thought this chess page should at least mention it or point to another article where one can learn about it. – ishwar  (speak) 04:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

My understanding -based on Golombek in the 1960's & no reference atm -is there is no penalty BUT the position must be restored to before the illegal move. In Rapidplay, I believe you can simply take the opposing king. If it's a sealed move you forfeit the game. JRPG (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• For tournament chess, the rules have been changed from time to time, they were last changed in 2018. The exact consequences depend on the time control:
  • In standard chess, with a long time limit, the first illegal move is handled by restoring the position to immediately before the illegal move was played, and the opponent gains two minutes on the clock. Touch-move applies as always. The second illegal move by the same player results in a loss (except when the position is such that the opponent cannot possibly win by any series of legal moves - in that event the game is drawn).
  • In rapid chess, the illegality of the move must be discovered before the opponent makes a move. In that case the position is restored, the opponent receives two minutes extra, and play continues. The second illegal move by the same player results in a loss. An illegal move that is not spotted is allowed to stand and play continues.
  • In blitz chess, the rules are as in rapid chess, except that the penalty for an illegal move is one minute to the opponent, rather than two minutes.

All the rules for irregularities in standard chess are laid out in Article 7 in the Laws of Chess, while the modifications for rapid and blitz are in appendices A and B.

These rules are quite detailed, and would probably overwhelm the main chess article, but Rules of chess covers it (although I see the coverage there on illegal moves is outdated). Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

i see. It's a bit more complicated than i thought. Thanks.

so, it varies across time control as well as across time (even fluctuating as recently as a year ago).

i might suggest that it be mentioned here with a very general single sentence with a pointer to the Rules of chess article. (Since this article also does not mention the touch rule, at least the lack of details in this overview article is consistent.)

at any rate, i now know where to point to from the shogi article. – ishwar  (speak) 18:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Was there not a documented game where a professional player made an illegal move in the opening by moving the bishop instead of knight to the third rank and he was then compelled to move his king and was immediately checkmated by the opposing Queen? I clearly remember that in a book from some years ago....

That is the tragicomedy Lindemann vs Echtermeyer (1893): 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5, and then the illegal 3.Bc3 (intending 3.Nc3) was played. The rule then was indeed that you had to play a king move as a penalty for an illegal move (although I am not sure what would have happened if the king could not legally move), and so 3.Ke2 Qe4# followed. But that is not the rule now: today White would be forced (if the illegal move was noticed) to retract 3.Bc3 ane play a legal move with his bishop if possible (touch-move rule), and since that is not possible, he would have gotten off with no penalty. Double sharp (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Refusing to shake hands?

In section 1.7.1, "Win", we make the following unsourced claim:

In high-level tournaments, players have been forfeited for such things as:

• arriving late for the game (even by a matter of seconds);
• receiving a call or text on a cell phone;
• refusing to undergo a drug test;
• refusing to undergo a body search for electronic devices;
• unsporting behavior (e.g. refusing to shake hands with the opponent).

I am not sure I believe all of these. Because of that, I think they should be supported by citations. Alternatively, it would be possible to say something like "players can be forfeited for various infractions of rules of tournament conduct"; this wouldn't need a citation, and I don't think that the article actually needs the more detailed enumeration. Comments? Bruce leverett (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The "refusing to shake hands" incident involved Nigel Short and Ivan Cheparinov. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Gb4lJeXqI Cheparinov was forfeited for this, but Short later relented and beat him at the board. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, what a strange story, you couldn't make this stuff up. I have found a WP:RS for this, and could add it, but I am still leaning toward something like "various infractions of rules of tournament conduct". I am not sure this article should go into detail about exactly what infractions are possible. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"hidden information"

This article says, "Play involves no hidden information." Sure, chess play has no "hidden information" in the game theory sense, but chess play most certainly does have hidden information in the sense of information that is hidden. Any advanced chess player will tell you that if you know what your opponent likes to play, especially in the opening, you can gain an advantage over your opponent. But that information is often hidden from you, though the better a player is, the more likely their games would be available for study or analysis. Still, what it says (in the game theory context) is good to know. I cannot think of an improvement at this time, do I'm leaving it there, but leaving this Talk article to clarify the issue. DavidForthoffer (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Your complaint makes no sense. "No hidden information" is a precisely defined phrase, and it is accurate. Quale (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense. "No hidden information" is a precisely defined phrase only within game theory. This article is not about game theory. It is about the game of chess that is played by millions of people. The term "hidden information" for these millions of people would naturally refer to information that is hidden. For such people, information needed to play the game well is often hidden. You are obviously not a competitive chess player. DavidForthoffer (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has an article about this concept, Perfect information. We should have a wikilink to that. There are (at least) two ways to proceed: modify the sentence to use "perfect information"; or make "no hidden information" a wikilink to "perfect information". I will defer to you guys as to which would be preferable. BTW let's refrain from the ad hominem stuff. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

??? I assumed that we did not already have a wikilink to Perfect information, because User:DavidForthoffer was complaining, but we do. I apologize, then, for my confusing comment. The use of a wikilink is the standard thing to do in situations like this, where a phrase such as "hidden information" is used as a technical term, but might not be understood that way by many readers. There is truly nothing to complain about here. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"The Rules"

This article talks about "the rules" as if there were One True Way. There isn't. FIDE has rules, and even different rules for different time controls. Similarly for rules in other jurisdictions, such as U.S. Chess Federation tournaments. Even Chess.com has rules that differ from other jurisdiction's rules! (I.e., if your time runs out with your King + Knight versus his King + Pawn, Chess.com scores it as a draw even though your opponent could underpromote and allow you to mate him.) And what are the U.S. Chess Federation rules? I don't know. I have not spent the $22 to buy the rules from them. As such, I think it is misleading and presumptive to say, "the modern rules were standardized in the 19th century." The "modern rules" (whatever they are) are not even standardized today. It's mainly the rules for moving the pieces that are standardized. I will delete that phrase. DavidForthoffer (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The rules for moving the pieces is what it means to say the rules were standardized. The other stuff is rather minor and incidental. Quale (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think what a sentence means should be interpreted by what it says and not by why you say it means. If you think it should mean that the rules for moving the pieces were standardized in the 19th century, I'm happy with it meaning that, but it should say that, with something like, "the modern rules for moving pieces were standardized in the 19th century." As you left it, it is simply incorrect. The rules for chess are very meaningful to competitive chess players and are neither minor nor incidental. DavidForthoffer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The sentence starts with, "The pieces assumed their current powers ...". So in the second half of the sentence, it is quite reasonable to use "rules" to mean "rules for moving the pieces". Bruce leverett (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding WCH as a Title?

Should we add World Champion as the highest title of chess awarded by FIDE? In theory this would be true, but since this title is linked to only one person, it may not really be a title, or more of an achievement MySixthSense (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the FIDE titles were introduced (1950), the chess community has used "title" to refer only to those, and to comparable systems in various countries, etc., never to refer to championship winners. I suppose that if the non-chess world finds this confusing, we might want to mention it; but it had not occurred to me before. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Once and more.

Figures and letters. 176.59.208.209 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Origin of chess

Chess was developed by Shreyas Gupta around 1000 bc Gannuuuu (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Origin of chess

8839345202 Gannuuuu (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Age range

@Gamerknowitall: What is the idea of adding "Age range 7+" to the Infobox? One can attend scholastic tournaments and see dozens, if not hundreds, of children younger than 7 playing chess. Is there a reliable source for this claim? Bruce leverett (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That claim is quite clearly nonsense. P-K3 (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I am the person who made that edit! I've got the source from https://www.parents.com/kids/development/intellectual/benefits-of-chess/ sorry if I made you mad. Gamerknowitall (talk) 14:16, 21 May (MST)

Thanks @Gamerknowitall: -- it was a pleasant surprise that you looked up that source. Of course, the article starts with a description of "18 kindergartners", which kind of undercuts us when we are claiming age 7+, and undercuts the article's own later conclusion that ages 7-8 are "the best time to start". But, not to haggle. I noticed that you are going through articles about games and adding "age ranges" to their infoboxes. (I also notice that someone has already reverted you in Go (game).) I suppose that in an article about a commercial copyrighted game like Candyland, where the manufacturer puts an age range suggestion right on the cover of the box, there's no harm in copying that to the Wikipedia infobox. But for ancient games like Chess, Backgammon, and Go, I suggest that we are on highly slippery ground trying to come up with an age range. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to add information for the parents who want to buy the games for their children, let's say monopoly, a 6 year old kid wants to buy it and his/her searches it up and it is the Wikipedia page, then they won't buy it. (And also I want to use the information for the upcoming game "Clubhouse Games: 51 Worldwide Classics") User:Gamerknowitall (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2020 (MST)

I figured that you were trying to help potential game buyers. And, whoever added the "ages" parameter to the "game" infobox template probably had the same idea. But I'm saying it doesn't work well for the old, well-entrenched games. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I am the person who added the age parameter to the game infobox didn't you know that? Gamerknowitall (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2020 (MST)

I think the age entry in the info box is slightly silly for ALL games. But many games have an age recommendation printed on the box - though possibly not the same in all countries or from all manufacturers. I think it - in the info box, for all games - should be called something like "typical age recommendation" instead. And, with a valid source, such a value could be given for chess just as well as for other games (though, undoubtedly, considering the long history, strong tradition, and almost unlimited number of manufacturers, consensus on ONE age recommendation is likely to be unstable).

I do not know how or where to propose such a general change to an infobox, though.--Nø (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I missed that you (Gamerknowitall) were the one who added the parameter to the infobox. Adding or modifying parameters to infobox templates is way beyond anything I ever want to do in Wikipedia; you are in pretty deep for a pretty new editor. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Monopoly is not recommended for any age. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

semi protected

Hi everyone, I'm new to wikipedia and I'm a devoted chess player. What I don't understand is why chess should be semi-protected, can anyone explain? Geekpotato24 (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Geekpotato24 It's because of persistent vandalism. You just need to wait 4 days and get 10 edits and then you will be able to edit the article. P-K3 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, there's been vandalism? Geekpotato24 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, whenever the article is unprotected. P-K3 (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Geekpotato24: before then, you can also make an edit request here if you have any specific changes you want to suggest. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Iranian origin theory

Do we take this seriously or not? Ricardo Calvo is a credible source, but not in the distorted form used on the Iranian websites. The original Ricardo Calvo document from 1996 did not explicitly take a position on the origin of chess or jump to any conclusions, it merely asked the question. The original can be found here. The Iranian site dishonestly misrepresented him as advocating Iranian origin rather than merely raising the question. Both the sources cited ultimately come from cais-soas.com, a site which has been banned from wikipedia as spam/plagiarism. So the question is, do we take the Iranian origin theory seriously? Mention it alongside the Chinese origin theory perhaps? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Early Persian writing on chess explained where chess came from, specifically that it was not of Persian origin and that it came from India. Even Persians didn't claim to have invented chess. In any case, there should not be any claims about the origin of chess in this article that aren't in History of chess first. They can fight about it there, but my position will be the same. Quale (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

One can think about this in a Murray-centric way: did Calvo have access to any relevant antiquities that Murray hadn't studied? If someone wants to improve upon Murray, they should be able to show something that Murray couldn't have considered.

As for this collection, "On the Origin of Chess", I remember being led to it when I was looking at some other article, such as Chaturanga. It has a "thrown-together", rough draft look. It's hard to believe that all these grammatical errors could have been peer reviewed. It might be useful as a jumping-off point -- if you see something interesting, look elsewhere for articles by the same author that are better developed. If you don't find one, probably there's a reason. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Castling

Hey, I cannot edit this article due to semi-protection but I have noticed a grammatical error. In the second sentence of the castling section you will notice the opening of a parenthesis. This parenthesis is never closed which is slowly driving me insane as I am sure the sentence should read like this: "Castling consists of moving the king two squares along the first rank toward a rook (that is on the player's first rank) and then placing the rook on the last square that the king just crossed." - Note that I have added a closed bracket after the word "rank".

If anyone with editing privileges can edit this I would appreciate it a lot. Thanks. Iammatthew1223 (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Thank You! Iammatthew1223 (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Initial setup

Shouldn't king and queen be at same positions for both players? Now Chess#Setup picture shows king opposite to king and queen opposite to queen. --77.221.6.23 (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the position is not the same for both players. White's kingside is on their right as they look at it, Black's on their left. P-K3 (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How is then that fair-play? Who 'officialized' that rule? --77.221.6.23 (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The position as described, with king opposite king and queen opposite queen, has been "official" for hundreds of years. As for "fair-play", well, chess players do not argue about this much. People are always proposing modifications to the rules, but this is not one that I have seen before. I suppose that if I had to say one way or the other, I'd say that it's just as fair, or unfair, with king opposite king, as with king opposite queen. But it's well known among experienced chess players that the side moving first (White) has a significant advantage, so the game is somewhat unfair to begin with. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy issue

Hello all; in the first paragraph, the article reads "The queen and bishop assumed their current powers in Spain in the late 15th century" (sic). Whilst this is not necessarily erronious, it does beg to be discussed, the claim, as Spain, as a State, did not yet exist at any point of the XV century. More accurately, the Queen and Bishop rules were developed in the Kingdom of València, then an indepedent kingdom within the Crown of Aragon. Should this not be, then, corrected for historical accuracy's sake?

Also in the main body of the article, in the section "1200-1700: Development of the Modern Game", we are saying "Spain". The cited source, the article by Calvo, refers to "Valencia" or to "Valencia Spain". Also the article mentions "Italy", but this too may be an anachronism. And saying that chess was invented in India may also be an anachronism.

I am not sure what the "right" thing to do is here. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The modern concept of countries didn't really exist then, there was no Italy or Germany either. There was no political unit called "Spain" or "Espana" but the geographical term (Latin "Hispania") was understood. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)