Talk:Checkmate/Archive 1

Archive 1

need help

HELP!!! I added ==Basic checkmates==, but I don't know how to get the position diagrams in the proper place, relative to the text that refers to them. I altered a chess template from another page, and I don't know how to move them relative to the text.

I plan to add the procedure for forcing these checkmates sometime, unless someone else wants to do it.

I removed the "float" attributes that seemed to be the source of the problem. Is that right now? - RedWordSmith 02:31, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

That looks right! Thanks. I couldn't find any documentation on how to use the chess diagram template, so I copied someone else's diagram.

tip the king

The article says "Traditionally, when checkmate occurs (or is thought to be inevitable) one lays one's king down on its side to indicate that the game has ended (by resigning the game)."

As far as I know, tipping over the king shows resignation, but not checkmate. If so, I also disagree with the picture of checkmate showing the king tipped over.--Bubba73 14:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Nowhere does it say that tipping the king is limited to checkmate. Yes, one can tip the king when one is resigning, or when there is a checkmate. A tipped king is pretty much the universal symbol for a lost chess game (checkmate or otherwise). Also, please sign your posts. Alight 11:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• • I asked some other knowledgable people, and they say that it isn't normal to tip the king over after checkmate. When checkmate occurs, the game is over and there's no need to resign. They said that it was like saying "I quit" right after being fired. I don't care enough about it to change it, but I do think it is meaningless. --Bubba73 01:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• • I agree with Bubba73. At his suggestion (on my talk page), I tried rewriting the king-tipping part to make it clearer. However, like him, I don't really think king-tipping has much to do with checkmate. First, a player does not have to (and in my experience does not) tip over the king after being checkmated. The game is over, so it is not necessary to tip the king to acknowledge defeat (as Bubba73's friends said, it's like saying "I quit" after being fired). Second, one normally tips one's king to indicate resignation, but even this doesn't necessarily occur when checkmate is imminent -- it may be many moves away, although ultimately inevitable. So IMO the whole king-tipping discussion and the photograph of the tipped-over checkmated king should go. Krakatoa 01:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I agreee. The photo could be replaced with a diagram (which I could do if no one else wants to). Bubba73 01:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • So, you think this photo should go? I have an idea, show the photo to 100 people and ask them what one word comes to mind (besides "chess"). I'd venture that 95% of them will say "checkmate." The photo is meant to be a conceptual illustration of a checkmate, not a literal description of the mechanics of a chess game. This article has plenty of other diagrams, replacing the photo with yet another one would be pointless. Alight 01:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think the photo should be changed. It doesn't say "checkmate" to me, it makes me wonder why the king is tipped over. If anything, the king on its side in the photo designates resignation, not checkmate. It is pointless to resign after being checkmated. If you don't want to replace it with a diagram, then it should be replaced with a proper photograph. Bubba73 01:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with Bubba. The king-tipping is completely extraneous and has nothing to do with the fact that the king is checkmated. And I think if you asked 100 serious chessplayers (say, players serious enough to have USCF or other ratings), "What does it mean when a player tips over his king?" the vast majority would say, "It means he's resigning." It's a nice photograph, but someone should replace it with one of a checkmated, but still upright, king. Krakatoa 02:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I did a Google search and found a discussion of the issue at a chess forum. You can look at the responses for yourself. Everyone seems to be in agreement with the position Bubba and I are espousing: you tip over the king to signify resignation, not when you're checkmated. Krakatoa 02:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I think you guys are missing my point. Ask 100 people, not "serious" chess players what single word that photo evokes. "Evokes" is the operative word here. The photo is meant to be evocative of a concept, not a literal illustration. It's kind of like showing a photo of people lined up at a polling place to evoke the concept of "democracy." You could say, that polling places are not limited to democracys, and would be correct, but that does not diminish the ability of the photo to illustrate a concept.Alight 12:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I hate to pile on, but... The problem with the photo is that the situation is depicts is not typical in chess play. It isn't the way that real chess players behave, and that makes it inaccurate and deceptive. This is especially true for any readers who are not serious chess players as they have know way to know this, and they are depending on the accuracy of this article to learn about chess. To serious chess players the photo just looks weird, but at least they won't be fooled into thinking that it depicts anything that happens in a real chess game. I don't care enough to replace or remove the photo, but I'm going to remove the king tipping language in the article because it belongs with resignation, not checkmate. In my limited experience, king tipping is fairly rare under any circumstance, even for resignation. Simply saying "I resign" and extending your hand for a handshake is a more common way to resign. That people not familiar with the subject matter might think an inaccurate photo depiction is typical is all the more reason to remove it from an article as in that case it's actively harmful. People lining up at polling places seems like a fine photo for democracy to me, since I've witnessed that myself. People in democracies actually do line up at polling places, so I don't see what mistaken idea about democracy such a photo would foster. Chess players don't tip their kings when they are mated, but the photo strongly suggests they do. Quale 01:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Racism shadows?

I am traslating a part of this page to spanish, I get a question. Why every checkmate are from whites to blacks?

This fact is not trivial I think.

It has two points:

1. NPV.-Novice readers are going to think the blacks always loose, or often they loose. In chess white starts and they have a few advantage at the beginning, but every chess player knows this is not trascendental to the game result.
2. Metaphor.-Why in an encyclopedia are we going to reflect to humanity white are best than dark?

I invite you to be more accurate to the wikipedia philosophy.

Thanks

--GengisKanhg (my talk) 19:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this was true when GengisKanhg wrote the above, but the first diagram in the article (yes, the one that I said above in "tip the king" should be eliminated) shows a White king being checkmated. Krakatoa 01:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, my problem with the diagram isn't that it shows a white king being mated, but that the king has been knocked over. If the king were upright, but the position otherwise was the same, that would be fine. Krakatoa 23:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Right. Although the photography is good, what is it trying to show? Someone said that it was meant to "evoke" something. The only think it evokes to me is the questions : Why is the king on its side? Did it get knocked over accidently? Did someone do something silly such as "resigning" after the game is over?? The article is about "checkmate" and the photo certainly doesn't evoke the idea of checkmate. Bubba73 01:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The above is a silly point- we cannot allow racism to raise it's ugly head in this article! The color of the pieces are immaterial and do not reflect humanity. You might as well ask why do white pieces have the advantage and move first, being superior to black pieces then? The person playing white could be black if you look at it that way you might feel better about it!! dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.246.36 (talk • contribs)

It would be easy and more balanced to change the diagrams to show some white kings being mated as well. It's not racism here but "white-ism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.103.125 (talk • contribs)

I think someone is just having a bit of fun with the racism remarks. In chess literature, usually white is the superior side in example positions. Bubba73 (talk), 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I realize I'm addressing a question posted 4 1/2 years ago, white and black are just conventions, which work well in newspapers, for example. But in real chess sets, red is often used instead of black, and the two colors could be burnt orange and navy blue for that matter, as long as you can define which one has the "white" role, i.e. the one that makes the first move. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

shah mat

An anonymous user changed the definition of "shah mat" to "the king is ambushed," rather than "the king is dead" -- which is what I'd always heard. I found an article by Jan Newton "The King Isn't Dead After All!" addressing this point and concluding that "the king is ambushed" is the correct translation. I think I will add a link in the text to Newton's well-footnoted article, particularly since many reading that "shah mat" doesn't mean "the king is dead" will be surprised and even dubious about this claim, as I was. Krakatoa 23:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

new diagram

The new diagram added in the section Quick checkmates in the Opening is not a quick checkmate in the opening. Bubba73 20:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Bubba73 is right that the diagram doesn't belong there. I reverted to the pre-diagram version. If someone wants to put in a diagram of Légal's mate or one of the other mates in the opening, that would be fine. Krakatoa 22:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

King tipping photo

For what it is worth, following up the discussion above, when I saw the photo, I, as a chess player, immediately recognised that it wasn't showing the 'normal' procedure, but I did realise it was showing the concept of the king being defeated. Tipping the king over is symbolic of being defeated. But I agree that chess players don't usually tip the king over after being checkmated. Most chess players resign before checkmate, as allowing checkmate (unless it is particularly beautiful) is something to be avoided - you want to retain the dignity of acknowledging that you realise you are defeated, rather than requiring your opponent to demonstrate it to you.

Having said that, my resignation procedures vary from the normal "stopping the clock and shaking the opponent's hand", to "tipping the king briefly, then putting him upright again, and then shaking hands", to "throwing the board and pieces on the floor in disgust"... OK, I made up that last one! My point is that there are many variants in the body language of resignation. Some people do tip the king and leave him lying on his side, but it is not very common in my experience. And when I allow someone to checkmate me, I just stop the clock and shake their hand, followed by swiftly resetting the pieces to the start position! Carcharoth 22:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone who knows what they are doing tip the king over after being checkmated. It doesn't make any sense to resign after being checkmated. Bubba73 (talk), 23:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully the new caption makes things a bit clearer. I like the photo, as it illustrates both checkmate and "tipping" the king. But ideally someone will do two new photos, illustrating the separate processes. There is no article that I can find on resignation specifically in chess - I've added the chess meaning to the article I linked to there, but the article is mainly about political resignation. Chess resignation probably doesn't need its own article, but a short section could be added to an appropriate chess article. BTW, I am a long-time, fairly competent, chess player, and would like to contribute to some of the chess articles - what needs doing round here? Carcharoth 08:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Resigination is also listed at Chess terminology, and I agree that chess resignation doesn't need its own article. One thing that needs to be done is that a lot of diagrams need to be converted to the new format. That is tedious, though. Bubba73 (talk), 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think the photo should be replaced; it's not a good illustration of checkmate because the reader has to mentally stand the king upright again to check that it is checkmate. I might have a go at taking a new photo, if that would be OK? 213.249.135.36 18:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead and try a better photo. I've been thinking about doing it for a long time, but haven't gotten around to it. Bubba73 (talk), 18:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see it as an artistic photo, taking liberties with reality! One resigns just before one is mated in reality so the king being upright would not be realistic also , I like the photo! The king on it's side shows just how vulnerable the king is, I don't see a beginner being put off chess by this, on the contrary it is an intriguing photo. dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.246.36 (talk • contribs)

No, if one resigns before being checkmated, you couldn't be in the position shown. This is not about an artistic statement, it is about facts. Bubba73 (talk), 02:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The photo is just plain wrong! If there is a page for chess "art" then an evocative photo like this might go there. There are many false impressions that the layman has about chess that are often portrayed in the movies for example, who might well get their "facts" from a source as this . An encyclopedia should deal with facts so that more people will know the truth and fewer mistakes are made as a result of looking up encyclopedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.103.125 (talk • contribs)

I replaced it with a better photo. Bubba73 (talk), 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding Checkmate with Check?

Basic question: can you - while your king is in checkmate - move your piece to put your opponent's king in check, ultamately forcing your opponent to move his king, and avoiding your own checkmate?

Is this legal, or illegal?

No. If your king is in checkmate, the game is over and you lose. (If your king is in check but not in checkmate, you can check the opponent's king - if that move gets you out of check.) Bubba73 (talk), 03:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Logically, if you move your piece in case your king is checked, your king would be gonna be captured and you will lose. The aim of the game is to delay your King's capture and catch your opponent's king up. Well, if a King is mate, surely he is gonna be captured and defeated.

The king is never captured. If your king is in check, the only legal moves are to get out of check. If there are no such moves, it is checkmate and the game is over. See rules of chess. Bubba73 (talk), 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but conceptually... you can think of checkmate as representing the inevitability of loss of the king. If the game did continue until the king was captured, then you could give check from a checkmate position, but you'd still lose. The opponent wouldn't be forced to move his king; he'd take yours. I think that's the clearest way of explaining why the checkmate rules are the way they are. 213.249.135.36 18:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkmate IS about capturing, thats why being attacked by some piece X that in theory would not be able to do the capture because this would put his king into check is still check and (if you can't leave it) mate. In some game without those check rules this piece X would still be able to capture you and win (while in normal chess "in theory" they wouldnt/shouldnt since this would put their king in check). Checkmate is more some anti-accindental loss rule, than some gameplay feature.187.58.187.86 (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Bishop and knight versus king

I see someone has added an example of how to mate with two bishops versus lone king. Someone should also add the classic example of how, in the bishop and knight versus lone king ending, one forces the king to the other corner and mates it. Starting position, e.g. White king on f6, knight on f7, bishop anywhere on diagonal from b1 to g6; Black king on g8. White wins starting with 1.Bf5 (waiting) Kf8 2.Bh7! Ke8 3.Ne5 and now (a) Kf8 4.Nd7+ Ke8 5.Ke6 or (b) Kd8 4.Ke6 Kc7 (4...Ke8 5.Nd7! Kd8 6.Kd6) 5.Nd7 Kc6 6.Bd3! and the king stays trapped. I'm sure this is in all the endgame books. Krakatoa 04:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the 2 bishops checkmate. Someone make an article for B+N, and there is a link to it. I think it is OK to have it as a seperate article, since it is a lot more involved. Bubba73 (talk), 04:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you're lightning quick, Bubba! I just looked at "bishop and knight checkmate," decided my point was stupid since the position is covered there, and was going to delete my comment -- but discovered that you'd already (more politely) told me my comment was stupid! :-) Krakatoa 04:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

More fastest checkmates

Fastest checkmate (tie):
1. e4 e5
2. Qh5 Ke7??
3. Qxe5#

Fastest checkmate by a pawn:
1. e4 f6
2. d4 Kf7
3. Bf4 Ke6
4. Qh5 Nc6
5. d5#

Fastest discovered checkmate by a king:
1. f3 e5
2. Kf2 d5
3. Kg3 Ke7
4. Kh4 g6
5. g2 Ke8/Kd6#

Fastest discovered checkmate by a pawn:
1. f3 e5
2. Kf2 h5
3. Kg3 h4+
4. Kg4 d5#

Fastest discovered checkmate by a knight:
1. e4 f6
2. d4 Kf7
3. Nd2 Kd6
4. h4 Nc6
5. h5+ Kg5
6. Nc4#

Fastest discovered checkmate by a bishop:
1. h4 f6
2. g3 Kf7
3. Bh3 Kg6
4. h5+ Kh5:
5. d4 Nc6
6. Bf5#

Fastest discovered checkmate by a rook:
1. e4 f6
2. h4 Kf7
3. Rh3 Kg6
4. Rf3 Kh5
5. g3 g6
6. d4 Nc6
7. Rd3#
--82.207.191.177 18:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think these could go in the article, if they are referenced. By the way, T = rook in German. Bubba73 (talk), 19:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they're the fastest, but I think so. I found them myself (I hope they're right). --82.207.191.209 10:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

They can't go in the article on that basis, because of WP:OR. Bubba73 (talk), 20:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Two Knights

The page says that a checkmate with two knights cannot be forced but it can be possible...?! Seems to be a contradiction of terms. Is checkmate possible or not? HiraV 21:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick answer: two knights can not force checkmate against a king that is trying to avoid it. There are checkmate positions, but they can't be forced if black has even one move to make. I'll try to explain more later, but also see two knights endgame. Bubba73 (talk), 00:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way, put the two kings and two white knights anywhere on the board. If black moves first, white can not force checkmate. If white moves first, he can only checkmate is if he can do it on the first move (i.e. a one-move checkmate). Black need never get into a position where white can checkmate him. Bubba73 (talk), 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture problem

The picture is wrong.

Assume the following: black K on f8, white R on f7, white Q on e6.

If black plays ... Kg8, then he has moved out of *check*. 71.226.81.249 00:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the diagram to which you are referring. Bubba73 (talk), 00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the word... Arabic?

Checkmate seems to me to have Arabic origin. "Sheikh Mat" literally means "Sheikh (a.k.a. "King") is dead". 155.136.80.163 10:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'd heard for many years, but modern research has it a bit different, as the article says. Bubba73 (talk), 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

threatened with capture?

Normally I agree with all edits by Baccyak4H, but the phrase was changed to the king "threatened with capture", but the king is never captured. I have mixed feelings about this phrase versus the king being "under attack". What do other editors think? Bubba73 (talk), 17:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That type of wordsmithing is exactly what I attempt to do when making such copyedits, including that one... I do see your point. My rationale was to become more consistent with the end of that sentence "to meet that threat". I wanted to convey "what threat?" I missed the subtle nonsensicality of "with capture" applied to the king. (thanks for the complimentary disclaimer tho)

A phrasing in the spirit of both of us could probably be something like "when one's king is under attack and there is no way to escape that attack". That may not be perfect as is but it does have consistency between the current status and lack of resolution, both described by the word "attack", which I was striving for. And it does not have the subtlely confusing "capture" phrase either. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Legall's mate with the Scotch Game?

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 dxc3 5. Nxc3 d6 6. Bc4 Bg4 7. O-O Ne5 8. Nxe5! Bxd1?? 9. Bxf7+ Ke7 10. Nd5#

What do you think? Should I add it to the article? Guy0307 03:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Budapest mate (the first)

The Budapest Defence 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Ngxe5! 8.axb4?? Nd3# In fact is not a mate: white can answer with 9. exd3 can't he? --Giacomo Volli (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the black queen on e7 would then be checking the white king. Bubba73 (talk), 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick checkmates

Isn't this 'quick checkmates' section becoming a bit silly. Do we require a list of 101 quick checkmates? All the opening names also seems to distract from the Checkmate topic. ChessCreator (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, and I just added one. Perhaps the section should be moved to Quick checkmates in the opening or Checkmates in the opening or something. An article on opening traps might be good. Bubba73 (talk), 02:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some other article, perhaps Chess opening traps (although true not all these mates are traps). Many existing articles referring to 'Chess opening traps' (i.e Tarrasch Trap,Noah's Ark Trap, Halosar Trap Category:Chess trapsetc) and there is nothing to bring them all together and explain what that term means. ChessCreator (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about it more, and decided to move Quick checkmates to its own article, Checkmates in the opening. It could be combined with other opening traps, but I don't know of such an article. Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

four knights

I removed "Four knights can force checkmate against a lone king even without their own king's participation." This is an interesting fact, I'm sure it is true, but I couldn't find a reference. I think it doesn't need to be in the article, since it already has three knights and king (with reference). Bubba73 (talk), 15:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stamma's mate

I think the diagram for Stamma's mate must be wrong. (Reproduced below)

Stamma's mate

	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

White wins by Stamma's mate, with or without the move

In the diagram showing Stamma's mate (named for Philipp Stamma), White to move wins (Emms 2004:122):

1. Nb4+ Ka1

2. Kc1 a2

3. Nc2#

My objection is here - surely Nb4+ can be responded to with the pawn taking the knight. I'm presuming the diagram isn't quite right. The Stumo (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a black pawn, it can only move downwards. -- Jao (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Doh, of course. Cheers. The Stumo (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Computers can't play chess

I entered this position into Chessmaster:

White King: e1. White Bishops: c1, f1.

Black King: e5.

...and I get this as fastest checkmate?!?

1. Bb2+ Kd6 2. Kd2 Kc5 3. Ke3 Kd6 4. Ke4 Kc6 5. Be5 Kc5 6. Bd3 Kc6 7. Kd4 Kd7 8. Kd5 Ke7 9. Be4 Kd7 10. Bg6 Ke7 11. Bd3 Kd7 12. Bf6 Kc7 13. Be7 Kd7 14. Bd6 Kc8 15. Bc5 Kb7 16. Bf5 Kc7 17. Be6 Kd8 18. Be3 Ke7 19. Ke5 Kd8 20. Bd4 Kc7 21. Kd5 Kd8 22. Bf2 Kc7 23. Be3 Kd8 24. Bf5 Ke7 25. Bd4 Kd8 26. Bc3 Kc7 27. Bg7 Kb6 28. Bf6 Kb5 29. Be7 Kb6 30. Bd6 Kb5 31. Be4 Ka6 32. Kc5 Ka5 33. Bd5 Ka4 34. Be5 Ka3 35. Kc4 Ka4 36. Bb7 Ka5 37. Bc6 Kb6 38. Bb5 Ka7 39. Kc5 Kb7 40. Bf4 Ka8 41. Kb6 Kd8 42. Bg5+ Kc8 43. Bf6 Kb8 44. Ba6 Ka8 45. Bb7+ Kb8 46. Be5#

Surely this can be improved upon? ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me, but mind the alphas!) 13:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The program is just playing by general principles and must not have the technique programmed in or use an endgame tablebase. With a program with a tablebase, it mates in 17 moves. I think the maximum from the worst starting position is 19 moves. Bubba73 (talk), 14:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You can also use the 5 and 6 piece databases online:

• 5 piece
• up to 6 pieces Bubba73 (talk), 14:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

	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

FEN 8/8/8/4k3/8/8/8/2B1KB2 w - - 0 1

1.Bb2+ Kd6 2.Kd2 Kc5 3.Ke3 Kd6 4.Ke4 Kc6(Ke6 5.Ba3 Kd7 6.Kd5 Kc8 7.Kc6 Kd8 8.Be2 Ke8 9.Bh5+ Kd8 10.Bc5 Kc8 11.Be7 Kb8 12.Kb6 Ka8 13.Bg4 Kb8 14.Bd6+ Ka8 15.Bf3#) 5.Ke5 Kc7 (Kc5 6.Bd4 Kc6 7.Ke6 Kc7 8.Bb5 Kd8 9. Bb6+ Kc8 10. Ba6+ Kb8 11.Kc6 Kb8 12.Bc8 Ka8 13.Kb6 Kb8 14.Bd6+ Ka8 15.Bb7#) 6.Ba3 Kc6 7.Bc4 Kb7 8.Kd6 Kb6 9.Bb4 Kb7 10.Bc5 Kc8 11.Kc6 Kd8 12.Bf7 Kc8 13.Be7 Kb8 14.Kb6 Kc8 15.Be6 Kb8 16.Bd6+ Ka8 17.Bd6# SunCreator (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A similar position is in the main article except that the black king is on d4 instead of e5. Bubba73 (talk), 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkmate, but cannot be forced

In the section Unusual checkmate positions the diagrams all say Checkmate, but cannot be forced. That seems Original research as they can all be forced if material was previous on the mating square. Can someone check the reference. SunCreator (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

	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

Checkmate, but cannot be forced

In the first one, if material had just been captured on g8, Black could have captured with the king instead of bishop, and there would be no checkmate, so it is not forced. I think that applies to the other examples too. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 21:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there could have been a piece on h8 with the black king on h7 and the white king on f6. But if the piece (on h8) was a B or N, Black would not have been forced to capture it. If it was a R or Q, it would be an impossible position.

But it really means forcing checkmate with that combination of material. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 21:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

	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

Before...

1. Bxg3 Rxg3 2. Rxh2+ Nxh2 3. Nxg3# SunCreator (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

	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

After Checkmate forced!

But that is with more material. There is no position with that final material where Black has an opportunity to move where checkmate is forced. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 22:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

King and Rook vs. King and Bishop

At 29 moves, this is quite possibly the longest checkmate around, longer even than king, knight, and bishop vs. king. See http://www.gilith.com/chess/endgames/kr_kb.html . There doesn't seem to be an article on this particular ending. // Internet Esquire (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That 29-move checkmate is the longest one with the material of K+R vs. K+B. Most such positions are draws. But even the Bishop and knight checkmate can take up to 33 moves. And there are much longer forced checkmates known (some over 500 moves), see pawnless chess endgames for more information.

There isn't an article about this endgame but it is mentioned in pawnless chess endgames. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 02:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In the K+R vs K+B positions where the rook wins, in the worst case it takes 18 moves to win the bishop, which resets the clock on the fifty-move rule and reduces it to the basic K+R vs K checkmate. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 02:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In practice, most players resign an inevitably lost game before being checkmated.

"In practice, most players resign an inevitably lost game before being checkmated." This is quite simply wrong. Maybe most professional or well seasoned players resign, but most amateurs would simply not know that they are going to end up in checkmate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.4.150 (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation, please? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything I remember reading says that players usually resign before being checkmated. I'll try to find a reference. I did find one about ettiquitte, which I'll add. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Most" is a tricky term to use, but logic tells me that your typical amateur chess player quickly gets familiar enough with the game to know when he's in a hopeless situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea. Everything Chess Basics Book by Peter Kurzdorfer and the US Chess Federation, page 50, says that resigning is more common than checkmate, but it doesn't give any figures. This book is aimed at beginners. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 01:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Resigning is just a natural part of the game, part of its etiquette, as you said. There's no point in continuing when it's clear you're going to be checkmated. I can imagine someone just starting might not realize that they're in a hopeless situation. But that's part of the learning process also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a USCF tournament director. I've done scholastic only so far, but it is surprizing what some of the players don't know in this regard. One asked me if he could "forfeit". I said that he could resign. One player's opponent resigned and he didn't want to "accept it". I had to explain to him that if his opponent resigns, he wins the game. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 03:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. Is that kind of thing a rarity, or do you observe it often? It's reasonable to assume that anyone who plays his first chess game might not know about resigning. But one would think that most of them would catch onto it quickly. It may be, though, that youngsters don't care for the idea of "resigning" (i.e. "forfeiting") and would rather be checkmated, just for some sense of "closure". A vague comparison would be a timed sport like football or basketball. You keep playing until the clock says you're done, regardless of the score. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are the only two cases I can recall about resigning, so it is relatively rare. The most similar one to it was a player who was far behind called and wanted to "declare it a draw". I explained that one player can't just declare it a draw but that the players can agree to call it a draw. He repeated his desire to declare it a draw and I repeated my answer. Then I explained to his opponent that he could agree to a draw if he wanted to or he could choose to play on. He chose to play on. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 03:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the one could have just got up from the table and left, essentially forfeiting. But that doesn't appeal too much either. I'm thinking that the common thread there is not just closure, but maybe that resigning feels like you're being "a quitter", which is not the American way! Hence the playing of timed games to their conclusion even when it's hopeless. So young chess players have to learn that there is no dishonor in resigning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but leaving does not immediately forfeit. A certain amount of time is allowed for the games. We allow one hour total. If they are using a game clock then each player has 30 minutes to make all of their moves, otherwise they lose (except under certain conditions). When they have 10 minutes left, and they are not using a clock, we put a clock on them and split the remaining time. So a player that simply leaves will lose in a certain amount of time that way. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 03:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good system, as it keeps games to a reasonable length, and also provides an opportunity for a slightly panicked player to settle on his "final answer" - to come back and continue play or to properly resign... or to quit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the wording in the intro to state that most hopelessly lost games result in resignation before checkmate at very high levels of play. Also, I believe the reason for resignation in many hopelessly lost games is that continuing play is no longer entertainment but drudgery for the losing player, as opposed to being strictly a matter of etiquette, although I did not state this in the article. H Padleckas (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the reason for all the rules about checkmate and check when the goal is so obvious?

What I'd really like to be explained in this article is why chess stops one move before the real goal (capturing the king) is achieved. To my knowlegde, this makes chess different from all other board games. For example, playing Checkers you haven't won by saying "whatever you do, the next move I'll capture all your remaining pieces". You actually have to capture them, just saying that you can in the next move is not enough (you don't have to prove it either). Furthermore this seems to make the rules of the game unnecessary difficult. If the game would simply end by capturing the king, it's pretty obvious that a check-situation is not very desirable and you'd want to do something about that instead of moving around some other pieces. You wouldn't need the rules to include the word "check". I guess it's got something to do with politeness, it's not nice to have your king actually captured so there's no need to keep on fighting until the inevitable outcome comes true, but I'd say that the politeness should be shown by the looser instead of the winner (as the article points out, the looser should resign when he knows he is to loose, so if he didn't see it coming, why not simply resign in the very last move?). From a programmers point of view: a program that values the optimal situation to be when the opponents king is captured is a simpler than a program that would try to reach a checkmate situation (which would have to do exactly the same calculations). I guess a professional chess player thinks in a similar vein, not trying to reach checkmate but trying to kill the opponent's king. Joepnl (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it makes the rules unnecessarily difficult. In chess the king is never captured. In ancient times they probably considered it undignified for the king to be captured or didn't want games to be decided simply because poor play allowed the king to be captured. They wanted capture to be inevitable. You can't put it in check and you can't leave it in check. It is different from checkers. AS far as programs - I think they do play that way. They give the king a higher value than all of the other pieces combined, and then the program will do anything to achieve or avoid checkmate. That should also be easier than programming in checkmate, and should execute faster too. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find out enough about the history and reasoning to put it into the article. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the article. I didn't know (but did expect) ancient rules did say that in order to win you have to capture the king. It's very interesting that first check was invented and checkmate later. I thought the humiliating capture of the king was the origin of checkmate, check logically following that rule, but it's the other way around. I still find it kind of curious that chess is the only (to my knowledge) board game (of for that matter, any game) that has a build-in protection against losing for making mistakes, but I guess life would get really boring if all mysteries were dissolved instantly on Wikipedia :) Joepnl (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As far as I know that is only true about chess. The king in chess came from the king, the monarch, and that must be why it is special - opposed, say, to kings in checkers/draughts. But also losing the king ends the game - accidentally losing other pieces doesn't (checkers and chess). Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I can’t imagine any way in which the game could have evolved with actual king capture as the criterion for victory. Under the rules, it’s not merely unwise or unethical or just illegal to leave one’s king en prise: it’s impossible. Any such move simply didn’t happen. Also, when one side delivers checkmate, the opponent has no possible moves. As the requirement to move in turn is nonnegotiable, there can be no further play, and no chance to actually capture the king. (Yes, I concede that one can make illegal moves in the physical sense of placing or leaving the chessmen, but so far as the game score, such moves are not entered into the record.) WHPratt (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

forced mate.

I was thinking forced mate probably needs it's own section or at least a detailed definition. what does everyone think about that. I'm a little concerned that in a redirect from forced mate the article on checkmate doesn't even really define the term or give it much attention at all this whole page kinda seems like a mess. Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Mistake

If a player says checkmate, but there is still a possible move left to neutralize the threat, is there some kind of rule against that, or is it just considered a mistake? 98.236.170.22 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule against it, it is just a mistake. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

2B checkmate

I read the article and still don't understand 2B. The B+N explanation is far better. 220.255.1.43 (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reorder the sections a bit?

What do you think about the idea to reorder the sections a bit? I think the relatively short History and Origin of the word sections could be combined and moved much earlier on the page, immediately after Examples and before the very long Basic checkmates and other checkmates. I removed an inaccurate attempt at describing the etymology from the lede but the Persian origin of the term probably deserves a sentence there. Quale (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The suggested reorg is a logical progression of sections (me thinks), but might end up feeling a bit weird with flow of diags interrupted by an etymology section. But maybe not. (Alternative would be to put Histoy after the lede and be done with it.) No harm experimenting, right!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have the Examples section above History. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Now History is after "Two major pieces" - I think history was intended to go after Examples but before Two major pieces, right? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Quale wasn't specific and wasn't clear if "Two major pieces" associated best with "Examples" or "Basic mates". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Arabic Origin of the work checkmate

It is important to inform the public that the term checkmate originated from the arabic word sheikmat, which means the "kind is dead" (Sheik meaning king. And mat meaning dead). Most people do NOT know this fact.

74.68.122.244 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)B. David Mehmet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately the "fact" that you think it's important to inform the public is not correct. The phrase actually originates from the Persian as is explained in checkmate#Origin of the word. I think it deserves mention in the lead, but we have to get it right. Quale (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Shah mat

I recently saw a movie (can't remember the name) about a Palestinian family who moved to the U.S. (Illinois), and the problems they encountered acculturating, etc. In the movie, the main character observes someone playing chess, and she says something like "You know that chess was invented in my country (Palestine)! ...Yes....the phrase 'checkmate' comes from the Arabic meaning 'the king is dead' or as we say 'shah mat'." It may be a moot point, but I just wanted to point out what the Palestinians claim. BTW: It's really a good movie, and I saw in on either Sundance or IFC. I just wish I could remember the title. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.66.231 (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A movie is not a reliable source. There are six or seven sources for the origin of the word. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's really unknown where Chess was invented. One of the claims is that it was invented in Persia (Iran). All I know about the term "Shakh mat" is that it's mean "checkmate" in Arabic and Hebrew. Galzigler (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Tipping over the king – Checkmate or resignation

In continue to the discussion about tipping over the king as a sign of chessmate, I found that according to Wiktionary, this is a sign for resigning the game:

resign: To concede loss of the game. A resignation is usually indicated by stopping the clocks, and sometimes by offering a handshake or saying "I resign". The traditional way to resign is by tipping over one's king, but this is rarely done nowadays.

Anyway, shouldn't it be mentioned anywhere in this article, or in any of the article about chess (the most suitable for this subject). Galzigler (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in the article. Tipping the king is a resign (chess), not checkmate. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We discussed this on this talk page a few years ago, see #tip the king. (Have we really been here that long?) Quale (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Checkmate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChessFiends (talk · contribs) 14:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Can you cite the book references in all the sections? There's stuff like the (Davidson 1949) page notes, but they're not in <refs>.
• "in Pashto, an Iranic language the word" an Iranian language (comma), the word
• "The term "checkmate" also has origins in the term "check", which means temporarily stop, and which also is in the chessplaying context related to the term "chess", which derives from the French word "echecs", which is derived from the alternating black and white pattern of an eschequier, or counting table, a pattern which was duplicated in larger form in some countries on the floor of the exchequer, a central bank, and whence such related terms as "checkers" and "checkered" were brought about.[citation needed]" that is one hell of a long-winded, practically non-sensical sentence, that also needs a source.
• can some of the PGN be made into a single line? It spreads the article out too much to have it all in 17 lines for 17 moves, make them all 1 liners.
• Several mates are not mentioned, such as the back-rank mate, boden's mate, arabian mate, anastasia mate, smothered mate, also scholar's mate needs a mention, and maybe fool's mate. All of these are fundamental, conceptual checkmates. Give them each a section, description and a little diagram. If any of them already have a full article, link to it with
  Main article: Back-rank mate
• Check (chess) in the see also category can be removed, because it's already linked in the article. Do the same for any others that are already linked, such as rules of chess and stalemate.
• can you put the 4 king and queen diagrams all in one single row? It's all about reducing the whitespace, so that your article is more readable.

It's a neat article, and after you've fleshed it out to cover a few more mates and added a few references, I'll pass it, good luck. ChessFiends (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment. This is a bit out of context: the GA nominator had zero edit contributions to the article before making the nomination. (The activity minutes before nominating had no substance and were reverted.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply

• Things like (Davidson 1949:22) are standard Parenthetical referencing, also known as Harvard referencing or author/date referencing. You The reader can click on them to jump to the reference.
• "can some of the PGN be made into a single line? It spreads the article out too much to have it all in 17 lines for 17 moves, make them all 1 liners." - it is standard in chess literature to list the moves in the main line in a column, as they were before today. And if it is in the standard column format, it isn't PGN.
• "Several mates are not mentioned, such as the back-rank mate, boden's mate, arabian mate, anastasia mate, smothered mate, also scholar's mate needs a mention, and maybe fool's mate. All of these are fundamental, conceptual checkmates. Give them each a section, " - there are too many of them and many of them are very rare. There is checkmate patterns. I do not think it is worthwhile to cover these in this general-interest article. There are many other checkmates that don't have names, and the names of many of the ones in checkmate patterns are dubious anyway. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Added reply - I think the links in the see also should stay there, even if they are duplicates of links in the body. Someone going to this article may want to go to one of those important topics without having to search through the body of the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• It may be standard in chess books, to list moves in a column, but in an article, it just takes up too much space.
• Are you seriously suggesting that back-rank mates don't deserve a place in the article "checkmate"? It's one of the most common mates any player is going to come up against. All of the mates I mentioned are extremely well known and I'm asking that he covers the basic ones, briefly, and not the rare ones. ChessFiends (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Boden's mate, Arabian mate, and Anastasia mate are all extremely rare. The other checkmates have their own articles, which are linked to from this article. No one except pure novices are likely to see a back-rank checkmate. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to Back-rank checkmate being discussed briefly in this article. I'm also thinking that it would probably be better for this article that rare/unusual checkmates should be split off to another article - keep this one simple. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Back-rank mates are one of the most common themes in chess, plenty of tactics revolve around the idea of there being a back-rank threat. And yes there are links in the article, but they should be covered briefly in sections of it, in order to make it complete. Maybe not anastasia and boden on second thoughts, because those generally involve sequences, like queensacs or rook sacs, and those can go in mating patterns article. But smothered is an extremely important, fundamental mate that isn't covered here. Back-ranks, arabian mate is seen fairly frequently. Scholar's mate maybe too, but I'm kind of meh on that one, it gets too much recognition heh. ChessFiends (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

OK - how about adding brief sections on Scholar's mate, fool's mate, back-rank mate, and smothered mate, with links to the main articles. And with that, I think that perhaps the rare/unusual checkmates should be split off and maybe even two bishops should be split off. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty hard-core on duplication -- I'm against it. (That's what links are for. No duplication is necessary. And duplication leaves problems of maintenance, corrections, updates, synchronization, consistency, and so on. So I say avoid it. Make references instead; use article links instead.) The current article covers the "basic mates", I believe that is unique, and appropriate, for this article, as definition, and fundamental endgame mates. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If back-rank is added, it s/b precisely the same as at Checkmate patterns (to avoid & keep duplications to a minimum). I'm not sure about including back-rank mates, however. (The "basic mates" are straight forward. Beyond that, what is the criteria for picking & choosing? And why?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I worked on this article a couple of years ago. The idea was to tell in general about checkmate and then include basic checkmates and checkmates that don't have their own article. There is a summary of B+N because it is one of the fundamental ones, but it is too large to include all of it in this article, so it has its own article. Another slight exception is 2N versus P. Some of this is duplicated in two knights ending but 2N vs. P is often considered a basic one. Also, readers probably get to wondering about 2N versus K, so that is discussed here. In addition, 3N is discussed here. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

IMO that original organizational strategy was (is) sound, and shouldn't be redone w/o a clear and demonstrably better org strategy. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a 3 knights mate should be included in the checkmate article where back-ranks and smothers aren't covered. When people go to the checkmate article, they're looking to learn about the ideas of checkmate and the groundwork for the more complex mates. We shouldn't skip out those mates just because they're covered in their own articles, we should just make small sections for them, accompanied with diagrams and have a main article link to the page. Also something I don't understand about this is that only bare piece mates are covered, such as 2 bishops and b+n, but most checkmates don't come from solitary pieces, we should cover the other side of things, the ones with other pieces on the board. Also, maybe the Rare checkmate positions needs removal. These are just my ideas, I wanna help improve the article same as you guys, ChessFiends (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. But smothered mate and bank-rank do have their own articles. Three knights is the minimum number that can force checkmate, for people who are wondering about two knights, and that is referenced. However, the example (diagram and moves) are not referenced. I thought it might be in ECE but it isn't. ECE does have three positions with that material, but none of them involve a checkmate with three knights. I think I'll remove that - it has been unreferenced for a few months. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"When people go to the checkmate article, they're looking to learn about the ideas of checkmate and the groundwork for the more complex mates." I really don't know what that means exactly ("the ideas of checkmate" = ?). And I don't know how, in an absence of any kind of survey data, anyone can know why "people go to the checkmate article". (The reasons might be different for different readers, and to suppose why the 900 views hit the article each day, without data, is only a guess.) To restructure an article based on one user's guess, why "people go to the checkmate article", I think is ill-advised. What is really needed, before an expansion or surgery is performed, is a plan, a vision regarding what the article should achieve. The original article vision, though limited, had a focused vision. If from there we just throw this-and-that in to cover a need for "well there are many more kinds of checkmates than the ones in the article" and it gives a sense of more completed coverage if additional mates are added, that is satisfactory for the feeling of achieving "more coverage", however, the thrust, purpose, focus, vision that the article serves, then has become blurred. (For example, "most checkmates don't come from solitary pieces, we should cover the other side of things". Sounds simple. It is not. Why isn't it? Because "the other side of things" represents, maybe, 1 million ways that mate has been done with multi-pieces on the board. The article would satisfy an undefined need for more coverage, but would lose any kind of focus.)

The big problem here is in deciding what the scope and focus of the article should be, have a plan, before "expanding" and "improving". (What should be the aim of the article? Unless that is agreed, then however would anyone know if it is ever satisfied, or close to being satisfied? There would always be another interesting or practical or cool or instructive checkmate example to add, there would be no end, and no end, without a decided vision/plan/objective, spells "mish-mash".)

There are three diagrams at the onset of the article, one is Fischer' Game of the Century mate with multi-pieces on the board. That is very suggestive, already, of mates with multi-pieces on the board. Was the inadequacy from the reviewer that this was insufficient but more need to be added, taken from Checkmate patterns? Okay, but how do we cherry pick? (The reviewer feels back-rank and smothered are obvious choices. But those choices are based on, again, subjective suppositions of reader needs/wants, and is only guesswork. For example, Bubba expressed his different view on the mandatoriness of back-rank mates, and for me, I don't think I've seen a smothered mate, after years of tournament experience as player, and spectator. When is the last smothered mate you've seen in a Grandmaster game?)

This is my first encounter with "GA review" process on a chess article, and, I'm not very impressed. (I see no difference, -none-, from an editor simply making changes to the article. Or proposing changes. There doesn't seem to be anything magical about "this article is under review" that makes opinions in any way superior or wiser than simply any other editors suggestions put on the article Talk page for consideration. There seems to be some perception around "GA reveiw" that seems to say changes can be bolder and faster than normal editing evolution to the article, and, I don't see any basis in that whatever. The GA Review info page says anyone can do a GA review, without qualification, and, that is identical to the editing process itself, so, there is no difference I can see, and therefore also don't think the perceptions of edit changes or proposals have any justification to be seen in any other different light than just that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Very sprawling, what do you suggest? ChessFiends (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No suggestions? So you were just here to complain about the way other people were doing things? ChessFiends (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Go soak your head, ChessFiends. Your bad-faith insult is way out of line. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to having short discussions of Fool's Mate, Scholar's Mate and Back-rank mate, with links to their main articles. So many people have probably heard of Fool's Mate that it can go in this article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Okkies, what about smothered mates? Maybe fool's and scholar's can go in a single section, like ==Early mates== ChessFiends (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Smothered mate - use your judgement. As far as Fool's and Scholar's mate going together, probably OK. Many people call Scholar's mate "Fool's mate" - I even know a master who says that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've put them in separate sections for more clarity. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 14:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

They need references. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the second back-rank checkmate is unreferenced in the main article. Someone added that - they probably made it up or it is from an amateur game. That needs to be fixed. If you want to add smothered mate, go ahead. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay a lot of work's gone into this, so good job, but I feel as if I can't give this GA yet, nominate this later when it's been worked on some more. ChessFiends (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Formatting

The formatting is all messed up from See also on down. I've tried to fix it, but can't. There is a stray "|}" that might be causing the problem, but I can't see where it comes from. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

conversion to FEN diagrams

I wrote a program to convert most chess diagrams to the new FEN format. The main reason is that the old diagrams slow down editing. Each diagram in the old format adds about a half second to the time it takes to bring up the edit screen and about a second to save it. Times (before conversion) 15 seconds to bring up edit, 30 seconds to save. After conversion: 7 seconds to bring up, 11 seconds to save.

Two drawbacks of the FEN format are (1) hard to visualize a position from the FEN, (2) harder to change. For this reason, the program leaves the original diagrams in as a comment, so it won't be hard to go back to them. The program also standardizes the old diagrams it converts by removing the rank & file labels (which don't do any good), making sure the pipes in the diagram line up, and putting the final }} on another line. (The reason for lining up the pipes is to make the position readable. In many of the articles, someone replaced two successive blanks by one blank, messing up the diagrams.) Let me know if you see any problem with these new diagrams (I don't know how to change the template). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Misleading photo

The photo is misleading—it's only checkmate if black has no other pieces on the board that can capture the white queen. This can't be proven because the whole board isn't shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.40.108.97 (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The natural assumption is that no pieces outside the image are influencing the position. It would be pedantic to mention this in a caption, and a photo showing the whole board would make it harder to identify the pieces. I oppose changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Primehunter said it perfectly. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree (this has come up before). If there were any other relevant pieces on the board, they would be shown in the photo. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

'Said perfectly'? It's untrue to say that it's a 'natural' assumption; that would only be made by people who know the rules (unnaturally). A beginner (who didn't know the checkmate rule but wanted to learn about it) would not make such a natural assumption. Whether the caption is pedantic ignores the truth value of the photo—completeness is especially important for the first photo in this article. The seven pages on specific checkmates (in the infobox) show the entire board, despite large parts of these boards being irrelevant. Pushing that to its logical conclusion, those boards should be cropped, because parts of them are not relevant and the pieces are harder to identify. I can see where everyone is coming from—photographing the tip of the iceberg is what matters here—but the arguments had some holes and they were not said 'pefectly'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.40.108.97 (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(Re the photo) A beginner would likely be more apt to not care, or even think about, other pieces not shown! (So I think you've got that backwards.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The chess diagram template shows the entire board and that is the standard in chess literature. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There aren't that many photos in chess books, but here is an example: File:Harkness scan.jpg. Notice that diagrams are given in full but the photographs are cropped to take out some of the irrelevant part. There could be some piece on the board that would prevent castling, but the rational assumption is that there is not, because obviously the photo would show all relevant pieces. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1