Talk:Chess/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 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. . 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"? 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" ; "Parlett is quoting pritchard, and neither are noted as chess players (just writers on games in general)" . 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)

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

External links modified

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2017

Rules

External links modified

Suggestion

Cheating in chess

women and men

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

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

IVC origin of chess

218 moves

Rescind FA status

Chess pieces, india 5th-6th century AD

Church and chess

Why is History section not the first section?

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2019

Broken reference link

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

Edit warring on this article

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2019

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

Seventy-five-move-rule description is unclear

illegal moves

Refusing to shake hands?

"hidden information"

"The Rules"

Adding WCH as a Title?

Once and more.

Origin of chess

Origin of chess

Age range

semi protected

Iranian origin theory

Castling

Initial setup

Accuracy issue

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI