Talk:Back-rank checkmate

Old talk

I dont fully understand why this article is tagged with ``This article or section does not cite its references or sources´´. I believe that every skilled chess player knows what a back rank checkmate is, and i have not been able to find any reasons why the lack of ``references and sources´´ could possibly be a problem here. A lot of books about learning chess or about the tactical basics of the game could be used as references, but i think this would not really improve the quality of the article. Water is wet <--- references or sources needed? In my oppinion, the tag could simply be removed.

Feel free to edit my comment, and please correct me if i made some mistakes (English is not my native language, so there might be some mistakes... and this is my first post on Wikipedia).

--S. Guggenberger, Munich, Germany 87.174.204.61 11:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I made the following update: "Removed 'unreferenced'. As the OP stated, the material presented is mostly common knowledge among Class-C or above chess players, and the solutions to the diagrams are objectively verifiable." -- Likesforests 20:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's not how it works. "Common knowledge" doesn't get a exemption from WP:V. Fortunately this material should be pretty easy to reference. The main problem is one commonly faced in sourcing elementary material: which of the many available references should be used? That problem is surmountable, and this page should be referenced. Quale 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back Rank Mate links

http://www.chessdryad.com/education/magictheater/backrank/brmate_01.htm

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7325/28/ (Middlegame section 4) :::ChessCreator 20:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with {{clear}}

This article does not seem to be displaying {{clear}} correctly. Oddly enough, it works when I preview the document; but when I make the edit, it screws up. I have tested this multiple times; to see, just click edit, then without changing anything, go to preview -- the page appears nicely. The formatting I have it in now is not perfect, but it is better than before: I placed the two images at the top into a table so they didn't make a huge whitespace in the article, and I have used {{clear}} in the Introduction section because if you use it before it screws up the location of the article's contents. If anyone can seem to get rid of the odd floating edit which appears to float from nowhere, it would be appreciated. Peace and Passion (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The clear needs to go before the next section title. I changed it. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 19:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's better to have it higher, then you don't have horrible whitespace and a floating table of contents issue, even though you have a cut off line. Peace and Passion (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(I moved {{clear}} out of the "Introduction" title line, as it was before =={{clear}}Introduction== it looked nicer, but it caused the floating edit-box issue. Now it's in Introduction section, the best compromise I could come up with that worked on Firefox and IE. Peace and Passion (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

First example is incorrect

	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

In this position as described in the article, White supposedly wins with 1.Qxc6. However after 1...g6! Black wins back the bishop by utilizing a Skewer, as he threatens the queen for real now. Perhaps place a White pawn on h5 so that ...g6 is met by h6. After 1.Qxc6 g6 2.Qb7 it seems White holds the bishop since the c8-rook must defend the a8-rook, but then 2...Rab8 would win the bishop also.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.Qxc6 g6 2.Qf6 now Black can't take the bishop 2..Rxc2 due to 3. Rd8+ Rxd8 and 4.Rxd8# Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's try the defense 1...b5, covering d8 with the queen. Then what can White do?Jasper Deng (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- That doesn't help Black much. After 1...b5 several moves will win: keep the queen on the a8-h1 diagonal with 2.Qf3 or 2.Qd5 or attack d8 again with 2.Qd7. Quale (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add it to the article.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- That's a good point. I think it would be better to use a slightly different position that didn't require extra explanation. For example, remove the white bishop on c2 and instead have a white knight on f3. Quale (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then however, ...h6 is a viable defense.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- A defense isn't sufficient because after 1.Qxc6 Black is down a piece. It's only the fact that the White's bishop on c2 isn't defended that gives Black any hope, although it's an easy White win anyway. The idea of replacing the bishop on c2 with a knight on f3 (or simply putting the bishop on b1) is to avoid these minor complications and make the theme more clear. Quale (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AgreedJasper Deng (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First diagram

The first diagram should stick to what the source says. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's a basic piece of information that again, like many chess articles on WP, give the misleading impression that white is superior. Lenzar (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It is taken directly from the source - it is good to stick with what the source says. (2) As was explained to you on another page (Talk:Rook and pawn versus rook endgame#Colour bias), the the standard convention in chess literature when using illustrative positions is to show them from White's side. Positions from actual games are usually given with their actual colors, but sometimes even they are reversed to show it from White's side (and never to show it from Black's side). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]