Talk:Chess/Archive 12

Are there any plans/interest to bring this article back to FA? It seems on first glance to have a solid enough foundation, and has interested editors working on it. Might be near GA level already Horsesizedduck (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I think the frantic efforts to bring it back to FA status according to modern wikipedia standards were a negative for the overall quality of the article. Most of the GA/FA reviewers don't know much about chess anyway. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The FA review that led to delisting was in early 2021. While one editor was attempting to address the initial concerns, another editor started a major rewrite (in his own words, "I tried to start a rewrite of the article to try to repeat the salvation 10 years ago"), which completely disrupted the process of addressing the original concerns. Another editor wrote, "That pretty much sums up my decades-long frustration with this article." A "solid enough foundation" and "interested editors working on it" are not sufficient to achieve anything, if editors influencing the decision have their own ancient agendas. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is it named fivefold and all the links send you to threefold? Am I missing something or should it be changed to threefold? MiniFlux (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Fivefold repetition is closely related to, but handled differently from, threefold repetition. There is a brief section of the article on threefold where we define and discuss fivefold. It would be more helpful if the links for fivefold sent you to that section, rather than just the beginning of the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes have restored citations of Leibs and of Estes and Robinson to the discussion of the origins of chess, in Chess, History of Chess, and Chaturanga. These two books are not reliable secondary sources on questions about the origins of chess. We evaluated them in January 2021, as well as some other sources, and here is the assessment (copied from Talk:Chess/Archive 10#"Years active" in the infobox):

I have found copies of (the cited pages of) Leibs, Estes & Robinson, Murray, and Bird online. Here is my assessment -- other editors are welcome to correct me:

• Murray sums up the origin of chess, 7th century, "NW India", on pages 26 and 27, but there are some later pages with more details. Note that when he was writing, what is now Pakistan was still part of India. So does "NW India" mean modern-day Pakistan? Judging from later pages, in which he mentions Sri Harsha of Kannauj, I think he had in mind more the "Indian" part of north India.
• Estes & Robinson has only 27 pages, and nothing about chess. Even if there is a page 34 and it's about chess, this doesn't look like a reliable source on chess history.
• Bird is quite a gathering of historical sources, but page 63 is not relevant to the history of chess. I did not see another page in which Bird tried to give a conclusive summary of the early history. But his claim that some ancient Roman texts mentioned "Chess" suggests to me that his criteria of what constitutes "chess" are not very strict.
• Leibs summarizes the pre-medieval history briefly and gives no sources. His "6th century" contradicts Murray, which is interesting, but I don't see anything to substantiate that.

Bruce leverett (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Added later:

• "Estes & Robinson" was written by Robinson, illustrated by Estes. I found page 34 by the usual devious trickery with Google Books, but this is not a useful reference, nor should it be in our bibliography. It is a book full of art projects. It is not a secondary source for chess history. On page 34 it mentions that chess came from India, and that's all. I have removed that citation, and removed that bibliography entry.
• I have replaced the URL for Murray with the URL for the Google Books version, which has all the pages.
• Bird has a summary of the earliest origins of chess that does not contradict Murray's, but I do not have a version of Bird that has authentic page numbers, so I will assume that the page number of 63 is correct. As a reference, Bird is more or less superseded by Murray, but it's fun to look through Bird, so I do not have any problem with keeping that citation.
• Murray's dating of chess to the 7th century was authoritative when he published it (1913). It is conceivable that Leibs knows of some source, found since 1913, which would push the date back to the 6th century; but as I said above, I don't see any substantiation of that.
• The Gupta empire was kaput by 543 CE. So it isn't safe to claim that chess originated under that empire.

Bruce leverett (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• In the book 'Chess History and Reminiscences' bird clearly mentions chess has reached persia in the 1st half of 6th century only, on page 228.
• Liebs mentions it in 6th century as well.
• The gupta empire was not done in 543 CE. If you look at the map they started losing land from 510 to 520's CE but after that did a reconquest after that . They completely started falling apart only after 550 CE.
• Vasuvadatta who gives the earliest reference to the board game has been recently been dated to 5th century, a courtier of two gupta kings.

Qaayush529 (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not remember how I arrived at the date of 543 CE. Looking at Gupta Empire, I would agree with you that 550 CE is a better date.

Murray (p. 51) mentions Vasuvadatta, and allows that the reference to the board game in it is "quite satisfactory". I see from Vasavadatta that the date associated with that tale has been debated:

He is generally taken to have written the work in the second quarter of the seventh century.[1] However, scholar Maan Singh has stated that he was a courtier of the Gupta emperors Kumaragupta I (414-455) and Skandagupta (455-467), dating him between 385 and 465 AD.[2]

Bruce leverett (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

heyBruce leverett (talk) . How are you going to explain bird and leibs references . They explicitly mentione it has reached in persia by 1st half of 6th century. That means it was already developed in northen indian in the previous centuries ruled by the gupta emperors. Vasuvadatta is also dated to 5th century by the new scholars thanks to some new archealogical discovery .

Isn't Murray reference quite old in this regard when we have comparitively little information and most excavations were still made out.

I would like to know your response. In my opinion it would be better if we add all the references Summerkillsme (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

hey Bruce leverett (talk) . Here another image which pretty much proves chess was already present in persia in 1st half of 6th century.

khosrow representative playing chess

One more thing is most likely this book was not excavated during Murray time so he had no idea of this reference of chess.

but the other authors does.

Its also easy to assume from this chess was indeed well developed and played in northen india in 5th and 6th century. Summerkillsme (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I will be reverting the recent changes to those three articles that re-introduced the citations of Leibs and of Estes and Robinson. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. One small point—Bird's view of chess history is highly inaccurate and I don't think it should be used as a source for the origins of chess. Even if he wasn't wrong on some specific point he was wrong about a lot and I would never point anyone to Bird with the expectation that it's accurate. Don't use Bird. Quale (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

 please, let me edit. I promise i will behave

 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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

“Always” is not true at all. There are absolutely people who refer to it as red/white when the set is red and white. I have heard it myself from other people when playing with these boards. None of you have managed to provide a genuine justification for why “always” is correct. This is because it isn’t correct. While I accept that 99% of the time they’ll say red/black, the fact that any outliers exist proves it should say mostly or usually rather than every single time. I’m fed up of you reverting the edit and saying “yes it is always actually because so there” when there are obvious exceptions. Need an example? Alice in Wonderland (2010) red and white board, referred to as red/white. Based on Lewis Carroll’s Alice through the looking glass, same matter. While there are more examples, they aren’t relevant, since ANY example of an outlier disproves the “always” case. Don’t be silly now please. CitrusSoEpic (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll wrote (among other things) fantasy fiction, not chess books. There is not a single chess book that will refer to the pieces as anything other than black and white. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

An example of an outlier doesn’t disprove “always”. If I say that driving is always in the right lane in the United States, the existence of someone driving in the left lane doesn’t disprove what I said. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think replacing

While the sets might not be literally white and black (...), they are always referred to as "white" and "black".

with

While the sets might not be literally white and black (...), they are referred to as "white" and "black".

(i.e., deleting "always") would be a marginal improvement. Strictly speaking, the meaning would be the same (so it might not entirely satisfy user:CitrusSoEpic), but it would be briefer and (imho - as a non-native speaker) slightly more elegant. Nø (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Nø - I'm fine with just removing the qualifier entirely ("always" "usually" "traditionally" or whatever) - calling the sides "white" and "black" is just a basic statement of fact. Antandrus (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I normally enjoy removing superfluous words. But “always” made a strong impression on User:CitrusSoEpic, so I have to assume that it is serving a purpose there. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I also favor simply removing "always". It doesn't really serve any essential purpose and it invites needless argument. Quale (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne2 has improved the text while neatly circumventing the above arguments. But this is reminding me of two related issues. First is that with actual chess sets, color is not always crucial, e.g. crusaders vs. Saracens. Second is that we perhaps should make it clearer that any discussion of chess set appearance and/or aesthetics is not, by definition, a discussion of chess. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

A few image issues in this article. The MOS asks to avoid image sandwiching—WP:SANDWICH—and at the moment the Setup section (yes one is not an image, but it creates the same issue of squeezed text) includes such an issue, as does the "Post-World War II era" section.

Re this reversion, the Public chess tables in Paris currently appears rather irrelevantly in the Rules section. How it properly supports the line "chess is one of the world's most popular games, played by millions of people worldwide" (claimed in the reversion's edit summary) I have no idea, as said line appears four paragraphs earlier, i.e. no where near it. I suggest removing it.

Additionally, there are numerous section which would benefit from media of some kind, i.e. much of Theory and the later history section. Aza24 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am traveling and cannot verify your statement that the illustration lands in a bad place, nor fix it, until I can work on something larger than a mobile phone. But I like the photo and will try to place it appropriately. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Also I recall thinking that the article could use some more illustrations, but that’s another thing I can’t work on while traveling. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Not understanding how or why you're seeing the Paris chess tables image in the Rules sec; markup puts it immediately after the Infobox in the lead, which is what I see on either a pc or using the mobile view sidebar. --IHTS (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I am on a laptop with vector 2022. The infobox pushes the table images into the rules section as the TOC is not there anymore to separate it. As such, it appears to be relevant to the rules section, when it is presumably not. I don't really see anywhere else it could be put, so deletion seems like the logical conclusion. If there was a section on amateur play around the world, i.e. in cafes, parks and other spaces, it would be fitting there. Aza24 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Didn't/couldn't know anything re the Vector stuff. Have taken your idea literally and added a new sec (open to modification and/or expansion). The "millions of people worldwide" thing in the lead shouldn't be w/o some sort of body support anyway; plus, there's no doubt more people who play than those who play in organized events, and the article is/was focused nearly or exclusively on rated play.  Done --IHTS (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

"Post-World War II era" sec:  Done --IHTS (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Setup sec:  Done --IHTS (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I reverted this edit by Amshpee that had no WP:RS. However, I do agree that there are tournaments that are faster than 10 minutes. I have played in them! I have never heard of a bullet chess (1 min.) tournament in person. Of course, there are such tournaments like that online all the time. We need better WP:RS in the article if we are going to correct the info. box. We might need to distinguish in-person tournaments from online tournaments in the description in the info box. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

We're distinguishing between casual and tournament, and between fast chess and slower tournament chess. The infobox should really not be so detailed -- infoboxes are supposed to be ultra-concise.

Looking around at other sports and games, I haven't yet found any that use the playing_time parameter! So perhaps we could just do without it. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree about shortening it. If you are under the impression that infoboxes are supposed to be short and concise, take a look at Nicolás Maduro. IMHO playing time is one of the most important characteristics distinguishing chess games (player skill, of course, the biggest). There is no comparison between a bullet chess and the games of Fischer–Spassky (1992 match). I cannot think of any other sport or game that has such a range of times of play in the orders of magnitude, but still creates exciting games filled with strategy, tactics, and suspense. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I was referring, of course, to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. If you think the infobox for Maduro is deviating from that guideline, feel free to fix it.

I am an experienced chess player, and I am familiar with the range of playing times, and it is indeed remarkable. However, you haven't made a case for a discourse on playing times in the infobox. We discuss playing times in the "Time control" subsection of the "Rules" section. If that discussion doesn't cover some ground that you have in mind, you can tinker with it, of course. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Understood. If you are considering removing the playtime field, rather keeping the discussion here, could you make a local poll in a separate section of this article and see if there is sufficient agreement? I don't think it warrants an WP:RfC at this point, but I think it would be fine to advertise such a poll in any other relevant chess articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The playing time discussion in the infobox is just bad. Tournament games can take much longer than 6 hours, in fact some tournament games can take more than a year (correspondence chess). Saying that games can take between 2 minutes (bullet) and 2 years (correspondence) in the infobox would be pointless and wouldn't edify the reader at all. Anything that requires a paragraph of explanation does not belong in an infobox. I don't think playing time distinguishes chess very much from other games of skill since many card games and other board games take about the same amount of time. The infobox in Nicolás Maduro is objectively terrible and is a good example of something we should not do in this article. This isn't the first discussion about the playing time in the infobox (see Talk:Chess/Archive_4#Playing_time and Talk:Chess/Archive_10#Infobox_-_((Playing_time)_field)_missing_information). Quale (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:"The rules of chess as they are known today emerged in Europe at the end of the 15th century, with standardization and universal acceptance by the end of the 19th century. Today, chess is one of the world's most popular games, and is played by millions of people worldwide."

To:"The rules of chess as they are known today emerged in Europe at the end of the 15th century, with standardization and universal acceptance by the end of the 19th century. Today, chess is one of the world's most popular games, and is played by hundreds of millions of people worldwide." JosiahAntonini (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess your point is to change "millions" to "hundreds of millions". What is the rationale for this change? Are you quoting a particular source? Bruce leverett (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This was already discussed in Talk:Chess/Archive 11#Chess player number. Consensus was that there was insufficient support in reliable sources for "hundreds of millions". Bruce leverett (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm changing, this image (in the right) presents a chessboard with a refined clarity that surpasses its predecessor. By eliminating background distractions, the photograph emphasizes the authenticity of the chess pieces, particularly the knights, which are positioned as though captured from an actual match. The standard colors of the pieces are vivid yet tasteful, enhancing the overall aesthetic without detracting from the seriousness of the game. The quality of the image itself is superior, offering a crisp, detailed view that allows for a thoughtful analysis of the game's potential complexities. Wilfredor (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this question to the talk page.

Earlier you tried to use File:Chess game Staunton No. 6.jpg. I complained about (among other things) the camera angle, so you are now using File:Chess game Staunton No. 6 perfil view 2.jpg, which is (in my opinion) a better camera angle, in that the shapes of the pieces are more obvious, and there is less occlusion (i.e. the White pawns are not so badly hidden by the White pieces).

A little history. The old illustration, File:ChessStartingPosition.jpg, was, like yours, a photo taken by the editor who submitted it. It was taken and submitted in 2008, but the editor involved is still actively editing chess-related articles, and is evidently reading this conversation.

Regarding color, I think that the black and very light wood color of the pieces in the old illustration are well chosen. The piece colors in the new illustration do not contrast as strongly with the colors of the squares, or even with each other. While low contrast is fine for a game, high contrast is (in my opinion) preferable for the purpose at hand, of illustrating the starting setup in an online article.

You refer to "background distractions" in the old photo. I am not sure what you have in mind here. I thought the pale-blue and dark-blue background in the old photo were attractive, but I do not object to your use of a plain white background. Also, there appear to be some shadows on the pale-blue background of the old photo, which are too small to see on the page, but which are noticeable when one clicks on the illustration to see a full-screen version. I do not understand what you have in mind by the "authenticity" of the chess pieces. I also do not understand your comment about the knights. They appear to be positioned the same in both photographs -- each side's knights face each other, rather than e.g. facing the opponent's knights. I should add that in the new photo, the very detailed design of the knights contrasts with the standard Staunton designs of the other pieces. This doesn't seem too important to me, but it is odd.

I am not sure what you have in mind by the "quality" of the image. Both the old and new photos are approximately the same size, and the same number of pixels, and were taken (as far as I can tell) in good focus (other readers may correct me about this). The old photo seems to have been taken from ever so slightly nearer to the board and pieces, so that they are slightly larger, with slightly less background.

Here's one more difference between the photos. In the new photo, there are rank numbers and column letters along the perimeter of the 8x8 board. Are these helpful or distracting? Of course, just a little farther down the page, we show a diagram of the starting setup, with the numbers and letters, so we don't absolutely need them in this photograph. (In fact, the diagram is all that is necessary for teaching the rules of the game; the photograph is just there for the realism and physical beauty.) I am old enough that when I learned chess, chessboards didn't come with letters and numbers, but now it's almost harder to find boards that don't have them. My curmudgeonly reaction to this is that people shouldn't need them. Oh well. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to delve into such a detailed description. Reading through your message, I was struck by a wave of nostalgia. It reminded me of my own beginnings in chess over 35 years ago, a time when chessboards were devoid of numbers and letters—unlike today’s standard. Inspired by your remarks, I captured this new photo. Notably, I appreciated your suggestion about positioning the knights outward to soften their appearance, which I've implemented. My earliest tournaments bring back memories of using similar but durable plastic pieces, although paired with a foldable board akin to a tapestry rather than the sturdy wooden pieces I’ve now come to prefer. The 21" Folding Rio Staunton Biggie Knight Ringy Rosewood 4" Chess Set represents a significant evolution in my chess equipment, more commonly seen at higher-level competitions, like the ones I encountered at the Quebec Open. I'm open to any feedback or suggestions, and please let me know if the photo seems out of place. I aim not to impose my style but to ensure we represent this intellectual sport as best as possible. Wilfredor (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: Did you intend to include a photo with the above comment? Bruce leverett (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No, what makes you think about it? Maybe I said something that wasn't explained well, it's because English is not my native language. Wilfredor (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to read all of the discussion above, but I have these comments about the two new photos. (1) the black pieces are way too light, (2) the lighting is very dull - it almost looks like a computer-generated image, (3) the knights are way too ornate, making it look like a set designed for display.and (4), it is not very sharp for a photo taken with a Nikon Z 7. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the lighting and the ornamentation of the knights, it's important to consider that both aspects can be quite subjective. Lighting can vary depending on multiple factors in the photography environment, and the ornamental style of the pieces might be preferred in certain types of tournaments or exhibitions. Regarding your comment on the sharpness of the photo and the capabilities of the Nikon Z 7, it might be useful to check the display settings on your computer or consider the possibility that the image was compressed when downloaded locally, which could affect its perceived quality. Additionally, you mention agreeing with Bruce below, which seems to refer to a different image. This could lead to confusion in our discussion. I suggest returning to the original image to avoid misunderstandings and provide a common basis for our evaluation. I hope these points help clarify the observations made and reach a consensus on the quality and presentation of the images. For now, I have reverted to my original image until a decision is reached here.Wilfredor (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

My comments above, dated 01:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC), were written after you had introduced your most recent photo, File:Chess game Staunton No. 6 perfil view 2.jpg. So when, in your reply, you said "Inspired by your remarks, I captured this new photo", I thought you referred to something even newer. But this was a misunderstanding.

Since you are a competent photographer and interested in this article and especially in this illustration in the article, I would like to see us come out of this with something that is at least as good as the original 2008 photo. But the objections raised by Bubba73 should be noted. I am particularly interested in the objection to the colors of the pieces. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace "White moves first, followed by Black." with "The lighter colour moves, followed by the darker one.". It is more accurate. You could also add to this saying "This is because, during the ancient times that chess was invented, the darker colours were believed to have more power and luck than the lighter colours, hence they were given the first move to create a more balanced game." Candwh4 (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: White and Black are standard terms in chess, even if the chess set you are using has red or green or blue pieces. The convention that White moves first is relatively recent and was only established in the 19th century, and this is covered in the history section. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Castling is permissible if the following conditions are met:[2] ... The rook has not been captured. ... PietroBertozzi (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I was unable to find this detail in the cited rulebook source so as it stands now, this looks like original research which is prohibited by Wikipedia's WP:OR policy. If you can provide a reliable source that mentions that condition, please feel free to re-activate this request. Left guide (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a footnote: It is true that castling cannot take place if the rook has been captured, but it is not necessary to mention this condition, since the description af "castling" is meaningless in that situation. As user:Left guide implies, we go with the source. Conceivably, user:PietroBertozzi could dig up a valid source mentioning this as a "condition", and if so, the edit could be made. Nø (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under organized competition-->governence it reads:

FIDE's most visible activity is organizing the World Chess Championship, a role it assumed in 1948. The current World Champion is Ding Liren of China.[12] The reigning Women's World Champion is Ju Wenjun from China.[13]

The new world champion was announced today to be Gukesh D. This has been updated in 2 other places in this article but maybe this spot was missed. Kinzo25 (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we mention blitz in the time control section? It's more popular both online and over the board than bullet. Kaotao (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense to mention blitz as one of the "intermediate" levels here. Thanks for noticing this. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett Thanks. Also, I think we should use the amount of time given to each player to define time controls in this article, rather than how long games under them typically last. This is how time controls are usually defined, and would inform readers of the boundaries of each time control. This was already being done for bullet. Kaotao (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I too would usually describe a time control by how much time each player gets, rather than how much both players get, which is double, of course. There might be some disagreement, but this is not a major matter, so you could probably just WP:BOLDly change it and see if anyone complains. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett サンキュー。Also, the time control definition is still technically reductive; FIDE defines time controls as the sum of the amount of time alloted to each player, plus the increment times 60. Given how prevalent time controls with increments are, perhaps this ought to be mentioned. Kaotao (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Is the article, fast chess, it states that rapid is 10 minutes to 1 hour long while in this article, rapid is 1 hour to 2 hours. Also the former had a citation so I assume that is correct so should the rapid time control in this article be changed to 10 minutes to 1 hour? Lecket (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The funny thing is, the "time control" section of this article has wikilinks to the different sections of Fast chess, so it is extra ironic that they disagree with each other. Although I personally might not be up to date about the jargon of fast chess any more, the citations to FIDE rules in Fast chess look good to me, so I would not object if you changed this article to agree with that one. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Kaotao (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've always found one thing in chess rules to be unnecessarily complicated, bordering on the ridiculous. Perhaps this is more like a forum post than a wiki talk post, but I would be happy if the article could somehow address what I'm talking about here.

Kings are never captured; they are checkmated, which means the game is conventionally condidered to be over one half-move before the king would actually be captured. I believe the game would for all practical purposes be the same - and slightly simpler to explain - if the rule was that the game is over (and lost) when one's king is actualy captured (but with the convention to resign when capture is unavoidable).

There may be one minor difference: One player may overlook an opportunity to capture the enemy king, and so, the game in "my" version would go on. What would happen in real chess ... is probably the same, unless the opponent point it out.

Am I right - the game would be unchanged, just lasting one half-move longer if the players do not comply with the convention to resign?

Anyway, there is a difficulty in wording the actual rules (where kings aren't captured). How can one threaten with capturing the king, if there is no move in the game where a king is captured? Should it be phrased in terms of controlled squares instead - the king cannot move to a square controlled by an enemy piece, and the game is lost if this cannot be avoided? Nø (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

"it is illegal for players to put their king on a square on which it can be captured (illegal means it can't be done), and all moves that attack the king must be parried immediately; if its capture cannot be prevented (cannot be moved out of check), the game is lost." You can't play an extra move after checkmate to let your opponent capture your king, that's not in the rules even if the gameplay would be the same. We aren't adding made up rules. Kaotao (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course we must state the rules as they are. That does not preclude stating that the rules are euivalent to a set of rules that are simpler, up to the last half move. Of course, a source saying sth like that would be good - or required; I admit I don't have one. Nø (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how this analogy would make it easier to understand the rules. Could you float an example for what you'd want to replace the paragraph with? Kaotao (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree w/ Nø that introduction of "capture" related to the K, even in terms of attempt to only clarfy rules, is inconsistent and even odd in my experience w/ decades of this editor learning & reading the chess literatures. (So finding another way, per Nø, is better for readers, IMO.) --IHTS (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

E.g. #1.

It is illegal to move the king to a square that is directly attacked (or through an attacked square when castling). A move that directly attacks the king must be parried at once; if the check condition cannot be lifted, the game is lost.

E.g. #2:

It is illegal to move the king to a square that is directly attacked. A move that directly attacks the king must be parried at once; if this cannot be done, it is checkmate, the game is lost.

--IHTS

The castling note is redundant since that's already explained in the castling section, and "check condition" is a bit awkward, especially since the word "check" isn't defined at that point of the article. Otherwise, "attacked" instead of "capturable" is fine. Kaotao (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I changed the section. It's kind of trippy how your examples are below my replies. Kaotao (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

The crosses mark squares the white king can't move to. Note that the d7 knight is preventing the white king from moving to e5, despite the fact that the knight can't legally move there, as doing so would put black's king under attack by white's bishop on e8.

Kaotao (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The recent edits (starting January 15) that reworded the text describing check/checkmate were poorly motivated. This topic is, as mentioned by Nø, always a snag when explaining the rules of chess to a novice. Since previous editors had found a choice of words that seemed to work, recent editors were inclined to leave well enough alone. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The old king description was "attacks on the king must be immediately countered, and if this is impossible, the game is immediately lost". This is a subset of the current explanation, using almost the exact same phrasing, but fails to mention that the king can't move to squares controlled by the opponent. This article already defines "controlling" and "attacking" squares, so I believe the current description is understandable and comprehensive. The check and checkmate section is virtually unchanged from December; if necessary, elaboration can be added, but only if it's reasonable. Kaotao (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You are right, we didn't have anything about "the king must not move into check", which was a startling omission. Thanks for fixing that. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Title. It's a travesty that chess isn't up there. We should look to trim as much fat and subpar content as possible, add citations where they're needed, and improve this article's prose. In the discussion to drop this article's FA status, the lack of coverage for chess' relationship to other games, online chess, and its role in popular culture are noted. Kaotao (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

In particular, I see three main issues with this article;

• The theory section is too shallow, yet occasionally lends WP:UNDUE to specific topics, such as opposite colored bishop endgames. The theory section encompasses the gameplay of chess in its entirety, and I thus believe it's the most important section in the entire article. Major aspects of chess should be given the weight they're due, and specifics should be employed conservatively. This can be done by adapting and summarizing info contained in the five subtopic articles.
• Inefficient conveyance of information. Information should be provided as succinctly as possible and in a natural prose style.
• Undue weight given and due weight not given. Every single world champion since reunification is given in shopping list format, while chess' enormous influence on popular culture is summed up with a Star Trek parody.

@Bruce leverett, @Ihardlythinkso, thoughts? Kaotao (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I gather you have read the most recent FAR, from 2021. Re-reading it now, I found it hard to follow, because there were edit wars going on, and you would have to read a lot of edit summaries and edits to really know what was happening.

My recollection is that someone who had participated in the original FA, but had been largely absent from Chess for some years, jumped in to the FAR by trying to do a major rewrite, including ripping out large subsections. One of the FA criteria is "stability", and so a major rewrite and edit wars going on during the FAR process is more or less an automatic delist. One can hope that that wouldn't happen if we tried to get back on the runway.

What started the ball rolling, back then, was Talk:Chess/Archive 10#FA concerns. In retrospect, this list of concerns looks like it should have been easy to handle. Note that it is more about things like the quality and quantity of citations, than the organization of the article and the relative emphasis in different sections. This is, I think, pretty typical of FAR's and GAR's. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Still, major improvements can be made to this article, and if they can be, they ought to be. I'll see what I can do about citations, but I still think our main focus should be improving the text; especially the theory section. To start with, perhaps it could be renamed to == Gameplay and theory ==, or something like that? Or maybe it could be renamed to == Gameplay ==, with === Theory === as a subsection. Kaotao (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Rereading the FAR concerns, it seems like the main emphasis was on a lack of comprehensive coverage of important aspects of chess, the ones I forgot I described in my OP, while the deletionists seem to have been pretty irrelevant in the discussion. I do think we need comprehensive coverage of chess' rules, and that FA status wouldn't be worth dropping them, but I anticipate that we won't need to trim anything important for re-approval. It seems like style wasn't a major issue in the FAR discussion, but keep in mind that to get this article refeatured is to go uphill, and this article's prose and undue coverage will be under a great deal of scrutiny. We're all friends here, so stability won't be an issue. Kaotao (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I am especially sympathetic to your concern about the list of world champions. In the last few years, an editor has created List of World Chess Championships, which is a Featured List. Between that list and World Chess Championship, we have what looks like pretty comprehensive coverage of the world championship, in addition to which, there is also History of Chess. One would think we could summarize it briefly in Chess, but it will be necessary to get past all the editors, including sometimes myself, who think that their own favorite world champion must be mentioned.

Regarding the rules, we have Rules of chess, but in addition, some articles about features of the rules, such as Promotion. Nevertheless I am sure we have to have a fairly complete set of rules in Chess -- novices expect to see it there. However, you were correct to delete the point about how a promotion must be to a piece "of the same color", and I was wrong to add it back, which I will fix shortly. This point has some interesting history, as mentioned in Promotion, but the novices to whom Chess must be aimed have little use for all that. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

...Wow, didn't know about that last part. Now I feel like adding that point back. Kaotao (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I explained why "horizontally adjacent" is not meaningful in describing the conditions for En Passant. Your rationale for adding it back doesn't address the problem. If you don't like "next to", it would be OK if you copied the conditions from Glossary of chess#En passant. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett see wikt:horizontal, wikt:vertical, wikt:row and wikt:column Kaotao (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ambiguous in contect context chess. We s/ return to "adjacent rank file" as best. --IHTS (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC) --IHTS (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC) --IHTS (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso Contect chess? I looked up contact chess and got the chess.com contact page.Kaotao (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't need to look up the meaning of "horizontal". When I put a chess board on the table in front of me, the whole bleepin' board is horizontal. Rows are horizontal, columns are horizontal. How complicated is that? Obviously I can't use "horizontal" to specify one direction or another of piece motion. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ranks are explicitly described as rows, and rows are horizontal. Files are explicitly described as columns, and columns are vertical. Ranks and files are not dependent on viewing angle. Readers with your knowledge that physical objects can be spun will still understand that passage. This is no more ambiguous than any of the mentions of "attacking" pieces in the article, which wasn't even defined until yesterday. Do as you please if you must, i won't revert. Kaotao (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm... I see that we are also using "horizontal" and "vertical" to describe the knight's move. I am not sure how to improve on that, but I will still replace "horizontally adjacent" with the language used in the glossary. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter for the knight even if those terms are supposedly ambiguous, because the knight covers all possible combinations. Maybe "2 squares orthogonally, then one square in a perpendicular direction" would be more succinct. I think I remember liking a definition used in Fairy chess piece. Kaotao (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hard pinned pieces aren't said to control squares (I think). However, enemy kings are still unable to move to the squares they would be controlling were they not pinned. This is a bit annoying, since it's awkward to mention this before pins are mentioned, and a bit reductive to leave it out as well. Kaotao (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I see the point. Taking on the goal of serial logical presentation (ala a beginner chessbook) creates the dilemma, of course, when typically articles use wlinks as a convenient (or lazy?) "out" of said dilemma.

Current:
The king moves one square in any direction. There is also a special move called castling which moves the king and a rook. The king is the most valuable piece—it is illegal for players to put their king on a square controlled by their opponent, and all moves that attack the king must be parried immediately; if this cannot be done, the game is lost. (See § Check and checkmate.)

What about?:
The king moves one square in any direction. There is also a special move called castling which moves the king and a rook. The king is the most valuable piece—it is illegal to move the king to a square in the line of movement of any enemy piece, and a move that attacks the king must be parried at once; if this cannot be done, the game is lost. (See § Check and checkmate.)

--IHTS (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Line of movement isn't used anywhere in the article, so it might be a bit ambiguous. Maybe we can fit a small explanation of pins into that paragraph, like so:

The king moves one square in any direction. There is also a special move called castling which moves the king and a rook. The king must be guarded at all costs—it is illegal for players to play any move that would put their king on a square controlled by their opponent. As a consequence of this, pieces blocking enemy pieces from attacking their king may not be moved, though the enemy king may still not move to the squares they would otherwise control. All moves that attack the king must be parried immediately; if this cannot be done, the game is lost. (See § Check and checkmate.)

This solution feels a bit like replacing one problem with another, though. I'll leave the decision making on this up to you. Kaotao (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I see your point. And it's better instead of implying or being indirect, we give exacting/explicit description of this small but important rules element. Need to cogitate more. --IHTS (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)