Talk:Chess/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Copy-and-paste the entire History section into History of chess article?

As it stands, the History section of this article provides a better summary of chess history than the article History of chess. Speaking of which, it seems to almost mirror an earlier version of the History section of this article, which tells me that the same text might have been copied-and-pasted into both of those places at some point. In light of that, do you think it will be a good idea to update the History of chess article with another round of copying and pasting? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk)# — Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

One need not speculate as to how History of chess got the way it is; if you really want to know, look through the "View history" tab.

I agree that it appears to be a chronic problem that sub-articles like History of chess and Rules of chess are neglected when duplicative content in Chess is modified. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I have concerns over recent changes to the history section, I should have mentioned this earlier. Chess books by McFarland are reliable sources and I believe @Cazaux: has expertise in this subject. That said, I do not like this: "All of India, Persia, Central Asia and China have good reasons to claim to be the cradle of chess." Even Persians don't claim to have invented chess, their writing says they got it from India, so I don't see any justification at all to claim that Persia has good reason to claim to be the cradle of chess. I think claims of very ancient chess pieces from Afghanistan are suspect. There are questions about accurate dating and it isn't clear that the oldest figures are in fact chess pieces since there are no boards, no descriptions of any games the figures may have been associated with, etc. It isn't clear the figures were associated with any game at all, let alone an ancestor to chess. Others may consider this to be a good reason for Central Asia to claim to be the origination point of chess, but I don't. Several writers have made bold claims that chess originated in China but the evidence they cite is either suspect or nonexistent. The earliest uses of "xiangqi" referred to an astronomical or divination game and it is highly doubtful that it was the ancestor of chess. This article makes an allusion to that fact without actually admitting how weak the claim is that the 6th century xiangqi had anything to do with chess. Xiangqi in fact has been used to refer to at least three separate games and the earliest reference to one that definitely resembles chess can only be established around 800 CE, almost 200 years after the earliest Indian references.

I have a real beef with this claim: "xiangqi appears to present some intrinsic characteristics which make it easier to construct an evolutionary path from China to India/Persia than the opposite direction." Unfortunately this article does not explain what those intrinsic characteristics are or why they indicate chess originated in China. Presumably they are explained better in the cited book, but I haven't read it. There might not be room for those details here, but if any such claim is added to history of chess then I would insist that this claim be better explained because other chess writers have considered unique characteristics of xiangqi and come to the opposite conclusion, that they make it seem much more likely that chess traveled from India to China. Chinese chess is more dissimilar to Indian forms than any of the other Asiatic derivatives, in Burma, Indo-China or Malay. Only shogi, is more dissimilar and we know that came later from China. I don't see how intrinsic characteristics that make it the most dissimilar game to any other make it easier to construct an evolutionary path from China, in fact it is the opposite. It's easier to imagine that chess originated in India and spread from their to Persia and the rest of Asia, with the most different variant being a terminal point of that spread in China. There's a lot of explanation of this on Talk:History of chess#Chinese theory of origin of chess and elsewhere on the history of chess talk page.

I strongly agree with something Bruce said earlier, that it would be better to first work these things out on the history of chess article and its talk page, and only then make changes to claims about history here. Quale (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. Didn't see this discussion before my changes. I ended up removing the line in question after judging it to be original research by synthesis and made some more minor refinements, but left the rest of the changes. I do agree that the added claims revolving around xiangqi could use more supporting evidence.

Given that this is the general chess page, I think the best approach is to briefly lay out the earliest-dated sources, provide the majority academic opinion (origin in NW India), mention that it's under scrutiny, and leave further details to the history-specific page.11achitturi (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no entry in the bibliography for Mark (1996). But there is one for Finkel (1996), but no explicit reference to that work -- are they related? Also, the bibliography entries should be alphabetized. Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I was named here so I answer. First, I have no illusion: it is impossible to have the final word on WP, anyone can jump and claims he knows better than those who have spent long times on studying a matter, just because he is he.

"Even Persians don't claim to have invented chess, their writing says they got it from India": in this case we are talking of the Persians of the early 7th century and that would be the opinion for modern Persians too? That text from the Persians is not only very old, it is a legend. A legend that also says that Persians invented Nard (=Backgammon more or less) in return, which is proved to be wrong. It cannot be discarded that Hind was mentioned there because of the prestige of Indian civilisation, as in modern world all what is fancy in Europe is said to come from the US, sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. So this element is not a definitive proof. "I think claims of very ancient chess pieces from Afghanistan are suspect": why? All oldest figurative pieces have been found from the regions of the Silk Road from Xinjiang to Afghanistan. Never from India by the way. I see nothing suspect here. "The earliest uses of "xiangqi" referred to an astronomical or divination game". Yes and no. If you look at the text, which is very short, we can see that it is related to a game and we don't know which game it is. We know no astronomical or divination game in that time. If we knew it would be easier. So this mysterious game can be a xiangqi ancestor or not. In the middle ages in Europe chess was associated with the "Moralities". Imagine we know only that, would we be able to conclude that chess was a societal or philosophical game? We just know there was a game then called xiangqi. Backgammon/Nard has been also often associated with astronomy and it is not an astronomical game. "Only shogi, is more dissimilar and we know that came later from China". Not a all. Shogi has as many links with South-Asian chess than Chinese chess. Its history is complex and most probably the result of a local maturation after several borrowings from diverse Asian regions. "the most different variant being a terminal point of that spread in China. There's a lot of explanation of this" I would be glad to have so many certainties! And glad to examine these explanations one by one. I stop here. You go very fast because you believe you know because you read something here and there. History is often more complex. History needs facts more than opinions. Therefore I believe that it would be better for Wikipedia to adopt a neutral tone. It is what I've tried to propose, apparently not convincing those who knows.Cazaux (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I don't see many facts or convincing argument in what you have written for reasons I've already explained. Why does the opinion of modern Persians about chess matter in the slightest? Later you say facts are more important than opinions, but here you offer no facts about why the opinion of modern Persians might be important. How do we know those ancient figurative pieces have anything to do with chess? The fact is all known ancient texts describing chess-like games come from India or (disputedly) China. Never Afghanistan. I don't see any good reason to be certain that those figurative pieces are chess pieces, it's pure speculation which I consider highly suspect. Regarding xiangqi see Talk:History of chess#Chinese theory of origin of chess, I wrote a paragraph there with some more detail including the important detail that a Chinese text c. 1085 says that early references to xianqi around 600 refer to a game that is not similar to chess. Chinese chess is more dissimilar to Indian chess than any other in the region except for shogi, and shogi is known to be younger than Chinese chess. That does not in any way suggest that it is easier to construct an evolutionary path of chess from China to India than the reverse, and you have not offered any facts to in support of that claim. Quale (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Chess history edit

2.2 History of Chase in Ethiopia

It has been known in Ethiopia for at least 500 years.  The table or chess, which was traditionally played among the nobles and around the court, was one of the most prestigious games in Ethiopian history.  The word "Amharic" is derived from the Arabic chanting, the Persian chattran, and the ancient Indian chatter.  Here is some evidence that this game was important in Ethiopia, especially among the kings and nobles.
At the beginning of the 16th century (1508-1540).  King Lebna Dengel played chess with the Italian artist Venus Gregory and Italian priest Alessandro Zerzi.
In the early 19th century, King Sahle Selassie of Shoa was another great Chess player.  ()
Translated from Arabic to Geez in the 15th century, the law of kings or emperors forbade priests from playing table games.
According to Enri Stratez, an Ethiopian missionary leader, in the early years of the 19th century, British chess historians unequivocally acquired Ethiopian tabletops from the Ethiopian Woldesellassie.  In 1913, the leader confirmed that the chess toy was available in three museums at the British Museum.  According to museum staff, Erin Salt bought the toy in 1820 from Italy in 1853.
According to author Marl Cohen, board games were very popular in the Gondar courts at the time, and the benefits, names, and movement of the game were published in 1881 by ANTOINE d.  Abadie's Amharic dictionary.  Cohen wrote that in 1911 he had never had a chance to see it, but he had heard that it was a common game around the nobles.
Lincoln de Castro, for his part, recorded a video of Dejazmach Gebreselassie and Dejazmach Ali Michael.  De Castro added that princes and nobles played at the table, even in court.  According to the Empress Dowager Taytu, he summoned the nobles to play table games in their assigned room, and he himself was a brilliant player.
Our country was established in 1985, 500 years after the advent of table tennis and 21 years after the establishment of the Chess Federation.  Ethiopia has become a member of the World Chess Federation.
For the first time in 1990.  Imam Abera won the Fide Master title with two competitors at the African Championships in Cairo, Egypt.  At the 1995 International Chess Olympics in Istanbul, Turkey, she won a silver medal with her brother David.  Two years later, our country, Ethiopia, participated in the 35th Chess Olympics, which was won by Slobania / Blade.  Ethiopia is participating in the biennial Chess Federation of the World Chess Federation. Mek2022 (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding a new era to the "history" section

I think it's pretty self-evident that chess as a game and sport is not in the same era that is being described in the "1945─present" subsection of the "history" section. The hallmarks of the era that are specified are, exhaustively, the following: 1) FIDE introducing a bunch of things, such as titles, changes to tournament structure, etc 2) Soviet/Russian dominance at the highest levels 3) chess theory being revolutionised by Botvinnik. The current era of chess shares none of these hallmarks: 1) the last major introduction by FIDE was the title of Candidate Master in 2002, but that is barely something worth even mentioning in a section that's supposed to summarise all of chess history 2) the last Soviet/Russian world champion was Kramnik, who lost his title almost 15 years ago 3) modern chess theory has been formulated almost entirely through the means of chess engines and game databases such as those provided by Chessbase ─ both features that did not exist 15 years ago. Additionally, chess as a game is completely different to what it was let alone 15 years ago, but even a couple of years ago: the vast majority of chess games is played online (a trend which is likely to continue even when the pandemic is over); in-depth analysis with superhuman engines like Stockfish is now accessible for free to everyone on websites like chess.com and Lichess ─ in combination with other factors like the existence of online tactics trainers and courses, this has made studying chess far easier and more efficient than previously and resulted in the average level of play continuously rising in the past couple of decades; top players engage with the chess community far more closely than they ever have done by streaming on Twitch, releasing videos on YouTube, and producing online courses; more generally, over the pandemic, online chess has grown into an e-sport, with e-sport teams now routinely signing chess players and with "chess" being one of the most-watched categories on Twitch; and, of course, it's hard not to mention (as far as I'm aware) the biggest surge in popularity in history spurred by a combination of the show the Queen's Gambit, online chess growing in popularity due to COVID-19, and online tournaments such as Magnus Invitational and even PogChamps. The past 15 years have probably seen more change in chess than all of the centuries that came before them, yet none of that is even mentioned in the "history" section. Does anybody mind writing up a subsection called something like "2000─present: online chess and computer domination" detailing everything that I described in this post? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

A problem with working on this section is that the listing of world champions doesn't belong there, or even belong in this article. When people click on "chess" they don't expect a hagiography. I do not know of any other article about a sport that lists the sport's past champions, e.g. Association football, Baseball, Boxing. World Chess Championship is more than adequate for the purpose. Does anyone agree with me about this?

That said, you are right that we have fallen behind on historical trends. Indeed, the "Soviet domination" era, while of interest to older chess players like myself, doesn't mean much to casual readers that make up most of our audience. We don't mention the growth of scholastic chess. We don't mention the growth of organized chess generally, e.g. the growth of FIDE to nearly 200 member federations. We don't mention the rise in the standard of women's chess. We briefly mention Fischer, but casual readers, who even at this late date are still likely to have heard of him, should get perhaps a little more information about what a celebrity he was.

I agree that we should say more about online chess, but a section called "history" seems an odd place to put that.

This is getting to be a serious laundry list. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your first paragraph, I for the most part agree. If people want a list of all the world champions throughout history, they should probably be directed to the World Chess Championship article. However, I believe that general themes idiosyncratic to particular time periods which set the trends at all levels of the game, such as the theme of Soviet dominance, definitely deserve a mention.

It seems like we both agree that the entire section does a pretty bad at summarising how the game at large has evolved over the years, hence my recent edits; however, one era in particular is missing from the section entirely, and it's the era that chess is in right now ─ the era of online chess, speed chess, computer analysis, super-GM streamers, etc etc. So, while adding things like the growth of organised chess would definitely serve as massive improvements to the section, adding a literal missing era should probably be our priority.

Lastly, why do you think that mentioning the growth of online chess in the "history" section would be odd? If phenomena that revolutionised chess and changed the way that it is played for decades to come doesn't belong in "history", then what does? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I subdivided the current section into 1945-2000 and 21st century. This is arbitrary, and arguably the modern/computer era began in the mid-90s with the rise of the world wide web (chess players were early adopters), and this is also when engines became strong enough to beat most amateurs and database software started to become common. Tablebases were another important 90s innovation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that online chess, and other phenomena connected with the Web, should get their own section (at least one section). People wouldn't go to "history" looking for things like online chess, online live commentary, online engine analysis, automated recording of game scores using DGT equipment, cheating using engines, and so on.

Thanks to MaxBrowne2 for reminding us of tablebases. These should be mentioned in the existing section "Computer chess". And yes, database software is very important.

History doesn't traditionally include right now. The people editing Ulysses S. Grant are editing history; the people editing Donald Trump or Joe Biden are doing journalism. I am leery of including a lot of very recent stuff in this overview article, and that includes streaming, Twitch, and pandemic online tournaments. These are memorable things, but the dust hasn't settled on them. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even realise that online chess didn't even have a section, as for me that was kind of a no-brainer. But now that I see that it doesn't, I wholeheartedly agree with you. It should definitely get its own section. That doesn't change the fact that it should also get a mention in the "History" section, though.

I agree with the general sentiment that we should be cautious with including very recent events in any historical overview; however, in this case, some of the recent events have been of demonstrably historical significance: for example, there are orders of magnitude more active users on chess.com than FIDE-registered players, which is roughly indicative of the fact that online chess is (and has for a while been) the primary means of playing chess among the general population, and online chess only emerged in the late 90s. Another recent demonstrably historically significant event is the rise of computers: humans stopped being the strongest chess-playing entities in the 90s for the first time ever, and virtually all recent chess theory was formulated with the help of computer analysis. So including, for example, something as minor as an insignificant change to the tournament structure of the World Championship or who the world champion was in a particular year but not including things which revolutionised the way the game is played at all levels forever seems kind of hard to justify. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: @MaxBrowne2: Just informing you that I've finished writing up the new section that I had initially proposed. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this. There's a lot of ground to cover.

"On the technological front, digital chess clocks were invented in 1973, making organised speed chess tournaments viable for the first time." -- What is your source for this? Looking through Chess clock and Speed chess, I see some coverage of this history, but not much. Going on personal recollections, I know that 5-minute chess was popular long before digital clocks were invented, though I do not remember when I first played in an actual tournament at that speed. Our definition of Speed chess also includes 30-minute, and I am sure that there were already 30-minute tournaments in the 1960's. I would guess that the epochal invention was not the digital clock, but the digital clock with increment or delay, AKA the Fischer clock (though Fischer's patent was apparently not the first one); this has made it more respectable to use whole-game time controls in "real" (slow, high-stakes) tournaments, which in turn has caused the practice of adjournments to be abandoned -- a very consequential change. I am writing this impromptu, but I would be willing to help look for reliable sources if I am not too far off base. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

My main source was our own article on chess clock. It looked like the information provided there was well-cited, so I didn't really bother looking too deep into the original sources. Anyway, quoting that article, "In 1973, to address the issues with analog clocks, Bruce Cheney, a Cornell University Electrical Engineering student and chess player, created the first digital chess clock as a project for an undergraduate EE course." I can dig up some reliable sources on this, if you want. As to the "making organised speed chess tournaments viable for the first time" part, I believe this was also either a verbatim or a paraphrased citation of one of our articles, although I cannot remember exactly which one. I certainly should have added some sources there. Please feel free to correct anything you find to be factually inaccurate ─ preferably if you have some RS which demonstrate that your corrections are justified. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It is manifestly true that the invention of digital clocks did not enable speed chess tournaments, so I will remove that part. But as for my own theory that the invention of the Fischer clock enabled sudden-death time controls, which in turn enabled slow chess to avoid adjournments, I am finding only vague hints in my search for support, nothing (so far) that I would call a reliable source to refer to, so I won't introduce that interpretation of history. Maybe I will come across something eventually, but who knows. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed the claim that digital clocks enabled speed chess tournaments (Fischer World Blitz champion 1971), it's just that they didn't take blitz very seriously at the time and didn't hold many tournaments. I have definitely played in blitz tournaments with analogue clocks, though it was a bit hard on the clocks and players did tend to start bashing them when their time was low. I remember a grumpy Polish club president who would yell at us "No five minute bloody chess!" if he caught us playing blitz. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that claim was just so bad. Kenneth Harkness wrote "One of the most popular of all contests is the tournament played at the rate of ten seconds per move. Around New York, where the big clubs hold weekly tournaments of this type, the contest is called "Rapid Transit" or a "Rapid"." Before anyone bitches that 10 seconds per move isn't the same as modern speed chess, Harkness also describes 5-minute chess (which he says was popular in Swedish chess clubs), and all this in 1956 (The Official Blue Book and Encyclopedia of Chess). Quale (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"... the most popular chess website chess.com alone having nearly 3 times more users active on a daily basis than there were FIDE members as of 2017.[91]" -- I was at first somewhat taken aback to find chess.com used as a reliable source on this issue, but the article looks reasonably well researched and sourced. But it is dubious to directly compare these two numbers (number of chess.com daily users, number of people registered in FIDE database). The article itself notes that only a fraction of USCF members are registered with FIDE. I don't think we will be able to find two numbers with which to make an apples-to-apples comparison of online versus over-the-board participation. Presenting just the chess.com figure of one million might be sufficient, for the purposes of our article, to give the reader an idea of the magnitude of online chess. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I have had the exact same problem as you. I have spent several hours trying to find a reliable source which would support the claim that online chess is more popular than OTB chess (a claim which seems to be self-evident), but after all of those hours, the stats from that chess.com article were the best that I managed to muster up. I know that the number of FIDE members and the number of chess.com users active on a daily basis are not directly comparable, but we must say that daily chess.com users also make up only a fraction of all active chess.com users ─ that's not even to mention that this number has probably at least tripled since the online chess boom. So I think it's fair to assume WP:BLUE and leave the article as is. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I take chess.com's figures for the number of users with a big grain of salt. There is no independent verification, so how do they get their number? Number of current accounts? Number of accounts in history? Surely some people have more than one account? What about all the throwaway free accounts that no doubt get created every day before someone decides they don't like the site and don't want to join? I don't think it's any kind of basis for making a claim that online chess is somehow more popular than OTB chess. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Read carefully: I cite not the total number of chess.com accounts, which as you rightly pointed out is close to meaningless, but the number of accounts that are active on a daily basis. I believe this info is really easy to get, as one only needs to look at the daily website traffic to retrieve it (although chess.com probably looked at the number of accounts that were active for more than something like two weeks in the past month to derive the number that they ended up citing, but point stands). I also believe that it's unlikely that the same person would use two different accounts in the same day, which means that the correspondence between that number and the number of actual daily chess.com users should be close to exact. As I have already explained, I agree with you that it isn't implied from the fact that chess.com has many more daily users than FIDE has members that online chess is necessarily more popular than OTB chess, but WP:BLUE and common sense I think are key here. I know that the number of FIDE members and the number of active online users aren't directly comparable, but nor is the colour of the sky during daytime determinable if you don't have the right equipment. Will we really need a citation for the claim that the sky is blue? I don't think so. Similarly, users active on a daily basis probably don't make up even 10% of the total active users on chess.com, and even so they significantly outnumbered ALL FIDE members (many of whom may no longer even be active) back in 2017; as mentioned, the number of such as users has probably at least tripled since then. With that in mind, I think it's safe to say something along the lines of "online chess has become the predominant chess medium" without citing a source that DIRECTLY supports this claim. What do you think? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

chess.com deliberately courted the casual players by promoting on facebook etc, but there are still a lot of competitive players with no FIDE rating. I'm sure many of the hustlers in New York don't even have a USCF rating. And of course there are still countless casual games taking place in homes, cafes, parks etc by people who will probably never have any kind of official rating. Also, internet is not as universally available or affordable in China, Central Asia, Russia, Eastern Europe etc, and chess is very popular in all those places. I just don't agree that it's self-evidently obvious that online chess is the "predominant chess medium", so any such claim would need to be cited. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not necessary to cite that the sky is blue. It absolutely is necessary to have a direct cite for the claim that online chess has overtaken OTB. P-K3 (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

In the context of this encyclopedia, there is no special need for us to figure out which is the "predominant chess medium". Even if we could figure it out, the answer might change in a few years anyway. At the risk of repeating myself, I recommend that you give some well-sourced figure that demonstrates that online chess is a popular medium, but without attempting to compare it with the popularity of OTB chess.

I am reminded of the same issue arising between what used to be postal chess and OTB chess. When I started getting involved in postal, I realized that the number of people who were playing in organized postal was quite large, and I had to wonder whether there were more of them than were playing in OTB. We'll never know, I suppose. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed the unsupported (and I think rather dubious) claim about the relative popularity of online vs face-to-face play. Something that I think most Wikipedia editors are not really aware of is that the sentence I left in the article "In 2017 the most popular chess website chess.com had nearly 3 times more users active on a daily basis than there were FIDE members." probably also violates Wikipedia guidelines, specifically WP:SYNTH. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The claim started on untenable ground with the editor believing that online play is the most popular but lacking any reliable sources stating the claim, he looked for supporting evidence that could be used to synthesize the claim. That's simply not allowed unless you have a source that directly makes the claim. This kind of synth is rampant in Wikipedia and this sentence should probably be fixed. I didn't do it because I admire the rest of the fine work on this section and don't want to discourage it. Quale (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Max Browne and Bruce Leverett have convinced me that the sentence that you have removed was not only not self-evident, but also probably not necessary. I'm happy with the current version of the article. The policy that you cite has always been very confusing to me. For example, is paraphrasing a violation of WP:SYNTH? It would appear to be so, as paraphrasing requires extracting data (in the form of text) from a particular source, interpreting that data, and then citing the interpretation, which is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. However, paraphrasing sources is not only standard practice on Wikipedia, but it appears to be the only advisable practice (WP:CLOP). I'd appreciate it if someone could clear this up for me; however, I think that synthesizing "A is almost 3 times greater than B" from "A>1,000,000, B=360,000" is probably fine (although, once again, feel free to correct me if you're sure that it's not). Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused about your question about paraphrasing. "paraphrasing requires extracting data (in the form of text) from a particular source, interpreting that data, and then citing the interpretation, which is not explicitly stated by any of the sources" – how is citing an interpretation not stated by any of the sources? Or approached from the other direction, if the interpretation is not in any of the sources, how is it paraphrasing to put it in Wikipedia? By definition paraphrasing can't run afoul of WP:SYNTH unless it is done incorrectly. Quale (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"The Boom"

I haven't seen any reliable sources that refer to "The Boom" with a capital B. I am still not convinced that a TV series based on a novel is a uniquely significant event in the history of the game, or that the recent surge in online games is anything more than a blip caused by the pandemic. There is a clear WP:RECENTISM bias here. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I think I have misinterpreted the sources. I'll change the capitalization shortly. The thing is: it's not the TV series itself that's significant, but the surge of popularity that it was partially responsible for, which is backed up by numbers. According to grandmaster and respected commentator Maurice Ashley, "a boom is taking place in chess like we have never seen maybe since the Bobby Fischer days," so I think we have good ground for mentioning it in the section. It's certainly more significant than who the world champion was in any given year, that's for sure. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Made a whole lot of edits

Hopefully most of them are improvements. I'll wait for the dust to settle. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind your edits at all. I'm a bit more sceptical of Bruce Leverett's edits, though. Not that I disagree with Bruce's rationale for them ─ it's just that they removed some of the good along with the bad. For example, I still think it's important to explain why online chess was as influential as it was, as a reader unfamiliar to chess is unlikely to care how exactly it is played; on the other hand, if we explain why online chess was the big deal that it was, that's probably more likely to be informative. I have made tentative edits which intend to establish a compromise between mine and Bruce's versions ─ as pointed out in the edsum, feel free to improve on them. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk)

OK I did some more edits. Bruce is a well informed editor and a strong chess player, so I have a lot of respect for his opinions. This is all being done in good spirit anyway, progress is being made. I will stand back for a bit. Maybe. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't doubt that a single bit. I didn't mean to imply that his edits didn't improve the article ─ I just meant to say that some of his removals clipped some useful info which should probably stay in the article. As to some of your recent edits, I have left some explanations in my edsums. I also prefer to write about history in past tense ─ in particular, while it's true that digital clocks generally allow for blitz play with increment, what's really of relevance here is that they had enabled this type of play when they were first invented. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the notorious single sentence paragraph, this sort of stylistic fluff is frowned upon in Wikipedia, but I appreciate your dilemma. I will try to think of more reasonable ways to lead from the earlier paragraphs to the later ones.

Regarding explaining why online became so popular: I should have more fully explained my rationale. First, the cited source, an online chess tutoring site, is not a WP:RS for the comparative advantages of online chess. I suppose I would be slightly mollified if you had found a more objective commentator. But while everybody has their own intuitive explanation of why online is so popular, Wikipedia is not the place to present our, or somebody's, intuition. Readers are welcome to apply their own intuitions. We should refrain from trying to explain the whys and wherefores unless we can cite someone who really knows what they're talking about.

Regarding mentioning of ICC, Lichess, chess.com, and so on: My own grasp of the history, and also of the present competitive situation, is pretty weak, so I won't suggest what to say here, but I agree that we should be very reluctant to mention specific names. We have to mention one name so that the reader can connect all this abstract language ("server", "platform", etc.) with tangible reality, but these are just corporations, here today, gone tomorrow, and all hoping to get some product placement by appearing in Wikipedia's flagship chess article. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I have actually restructured the section myself. Hopefully this is better.

That's unfortunate. I have stumbled upon a bunch of articles that compare OTB and online chess, and while they all say the same thing, none of them appear to be RS. To add insult to injury, I have lost access to that FT article I linked earlier, as it now just can't log me in. Maybe there's something there along the lines of what is currently in the article?

I agree with that sentiment. Well, right now, there is only one non-historical name (chess.com), so we probably don't have to worry about that anymore. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Alleged advances in opening theory

"In fact, the most important openings have now been analysed over 20 moves deep,[98] sometimes well into the endgame,[99][100] and it is not unusual for leading players to introduce theoretical novelties on move 25 or even later.[101][102][103]"

I don't like this sentence in the "Technology" subsection:

• Long before there was technology, it was not at all unusual for critical opening variations to be analyzed beyond move 20 and/or well into the endgame. If anyone needs examples of this, I would be happy to dig them up. We should not be trying to connect this with rise of technology in the last few decades. In fact, one of the cited references is from 1964.
• The cited references are excerpted anecdotes and look like WP:SYNTH or WP:OR.

I am inclined to remove this, but because it looks non-trivial, I'll wait a little while for other suggestions. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Another issue I see with that sentence is that it is not only the "important" lines that are analyzed 20 moves deep. Some "crazy" lines like the Two Knights Fritz/Ulvestad Variation and the Latvian Gambit Poison Pawn Variation are analyzed over 20 moves deep too, but no GM would play them at the board. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

In the 1965-1968 World Correspondence Championship, Hans Berliner won a key game against Yakov Estrin by using some deep prepared analysis in the Two Knights Fritz/Ulvestad. This game became well-known. In the 1970's, Berliner wrote a pamphlet about his research, called "From the deathbed of 4. N-N5 in the Two Knights". I even took some preliminary copies with me to a tournament and peddled it (I was acquainted with Berliner).

I don't know much about the Latvian Gambit, but I would expect that a similar story may be involved. Berliner claimed to have put in about 500 hours studying his line of the Two Knights. People don't put in that kind of effort without some pretty strong motivation.

The other side of the coin is that after a line is all analyzed out, nobody wants to play it any more, because one has to assume one's opponents know it. Too bad.

I just copy-and-pasted that from the chess theory article. If you have anything better which explains the impact that engines have had on modern theory, go for it. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Copying and pasting from elsewhere in Wikipedia is a delicate practice, see WP:COPYWITHIN.

It's equally a mistake in Chess and Chess theory to claim that hyper-analyzed lines are made possible by computer technology. When I have made an appropriate correction in Chess, I will consider circling around to Chess theory and doing something similar. However, in Chess theory, one might hope that readers would be interested in, and amused by, the anecdotes about lines that have been analyzed to amazing lengths, whereas in Chess, they are just out of place. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Advances in standard of play

We mention free online analysis, tactics trainers, examining of opponents' games using databases, and online courses. This section is rather more promotional than encyclopedic, but I acknowledge that we need to mention these things. Then we claim that these tools, and advances in opening theory, have caused "a noticeable increase in the average playing strength both at the amateur and at the professional levels", and we cite as our source Regan and Haworth. But this paper does not support that claim. It does support the claim that the 2700 rating level means the same level of strength that it did 40 years ago, and that there are indeed more players at that high level than there used to be, rather than rating inflation. But Regan & Haworth says nothing about the causes of the increase in the strength of the players. It's not hard to think of alternate explanations, starting with the far higher number of professional players. Also, Regan & Haworth says very little about amateur-level play. We have to either find a source that supports our claim, or remove the claim.

My own prejudice in this is that these tools, some of which I have used, make it more enjoyable to study chess, and may well enable one to progress more quickly up the learning curve. (But I suppose that progressing more quickly may not necessarily enable one to progress further. Hard to tell since at my age I am going the wrong direction on the chess learning curve.) But as with other hot topics, we can't rely on our prejudices. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the tone is slightly off as it stands. I'll leave it up to others to make it more encyclopedic, but the ways in which studying methods have changed in the modern era still definitely need to be described.

As to your main point, I have made an edit to make the article better reflect the cited paper. Tell me how you like it. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the Campitelli article.

I've been busy, will try to work on this soon. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I removed the reference to the World-Wide Web because the first ICS server predated the website by several years. People used to connect to it by telnet, according to Internet Chess Club.

So, strictly speaking, the WWW didn't historically "enable" chess servers. But of course, nowadays, everybody gets to chess servers via the WWW. So maybe I am nit-picking. I will leave it to your judgment how to handle this.

Regarding "allowing users to play other people from different parts of the world in real time", telegraph, telephone, and radio had already been used for playing chess. I realized that identifying what's new and what made the difference is tricky, and we were really getting deeper into the topic of history of technology than I wanted to get, or than I could get without citing sources, so I just decided it was unnecessary. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

ICC is still based on the telnet protocol, which predates the WWW by a couple of decades, and most ICC users use clients such as BlitzIn, Dasher or Thief rather than browsers. This is wwhy Alexa rankings are misleading in gauging the relative popularity of different chess servers (though I don't doubt that chess.com is the biggest). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand that; however, as explained in the edsum, the difference-maker was the WWW, as it's the WWW that made chess servers commercially viable and that popularised them. So it's probably best to mention both the internet, which, as you say, technically enabled ics's, and the WWW.

Regarding your second paragraph, while it makes a good argument as to why the "for the first time" bit needed to have been gotten rid of, does not explain what's wrong with the current wording. While it's true that radio and telephone allowed for real-time chess between people who were previously acquainted with each other, things like matchmaking and playing with random people across the globe was unheard of before online chess. And it's all but implied from context that "playing other people from different parts of the world" refers to these things rather than playing acquaintances remotely.

It's not obvious to me that this introductory article about chess needs to explain what's different about the new medium. This is especially true because we don't talk much about earlier media; we don't mention postal, for example. Comparison with earlier media is long and tedious and few readers will be interested in it. Anyone who is interested can click on the link to Chess server. The topic of media for chess competition is not without interest, but in this article, it only gets in the way. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The point is not so much that it explains what's different about the new medium as it explains to the reader what this medium is doing in a section about the history of chess. And what it's doing there is marking the first time that chess truly (rather than technically, as it was rare that real-time chess was played over the phone or radio) became a remote, real-time activity. As to correspondence chess, I think that's something we probably should mention, actually. I just don't have any resources on it. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

On a different note, what's your rationale for removing all mentions of speed chess? Surely at least the introductions of FIDE Blitz and Rapid World Championships were quite significant events? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

ICC was, and as far as I know still is, commercially viable without ever depending on the WWW. Yes it has a website, yes it is possible to use web-based interfaces, but it still primarily uses clients rather than the WWW. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC) I'm also not keen on using a youtube video by Gawain Jones as a source. Youtube videos as external links are just barely acceptable, I'm pretty sure they're considered self-published/unreliable as far as citations go. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with MaxBrowne2 that we cannot get away with citing a YouTube video. It should not be too controversial to claim that mega databases can be, and are, used in studying openings, or even that they are important for that purpose. But to say just what professional players do, and what they used to do before computers came along, we have to cite one or more sources, and they can't be YouTube videos. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

We might possibly link to it via this site. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It's also asking a lot of a reader, to expect them to watch a 1-hour video. I would be happier if we had, in addition, something readable. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

But the entire video is navigable using slides, which means the reader can easily access the information that they are looking for. Surely this isn't that bad of a source to cite? Props to Max Browne for finding the link. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"Asking a lot of the reader" is ok. After all it's fine to cite sources written in Chinese or Slovenian, and it's fine to cite printed sources that are not accessible online. While easily accessible sources are preferred, they are not required. Accessibility is not a requirement when citing sources, only reliability and verifiability. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The Blitz and Rapid championships are indeed noteworthy events on the FIDE calendar, but I don't think that adding them to the calendar was a major milestone in the history of chess. Am I missing something? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, we do mention the abolishment of the rematch rule. I would personally consider the introductions of entire World Championships to be more significant. Also, even if your assessment of the historical importance of these two events differs from mine, I would say (perhaps rather naively) that probably the biggest difference between 21st-century chess and 20th-century chess ─ as far as the actual chess is concerned ─ is that 21st-century chess is a lot faster. Chess has always been seen as a slow game in pop-culture, but this conception has, in the past couple of decades, grown to be partially inaccurate. If nothing else, this transition of chess from being a slow, thinking game to a combination of slow, thinking game and fast, instinct-based game is something we should consider putting in the article. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the relationship between speed chess and slow chess has changed qualitatively since I started playing chess.

It's a problem that we're relying on our instincts rather than on "reliable sources" to decide what are the important milestones in chess history. But, if anyone wants to break the tie here, I'd pay attention. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph structure (again)

As it stands, the paragraph structure of the "Technology" subsection is a right mess. First, we talk about the impact of the internet on chess. Then we talk about computer chess. Then we talk about some more ways in which the internet has affected chess ─ in this case, about how it has affected chess as a spectator sport. Then we turn back to talking about computer chess (in particular, about tablebases). We then randomly briefly switch to talking about the impact of the technologies discussed earlier in the section on chess study, before going back to talking about online chess, and then again randomly switching to talking about the impact of the internet on chess as a spectator sport. It seems like the paragraphs were arranged in a randomly generated order, and the entire section is incredibly hard to follow as a result.

I honestly don't see what was wrong with the version before Max Browne's edits. The paragraph structure was very clear: first, we discussed 3 major 90s innovations ─ online chess, superhuman-strength engines, and tablebases. We then explained to the reader that these innovations affected the way that chess is studied and followed, and consequently proceeded to explain, dedicating a paragraph to both the former and the latter, in exactly what way chess study and spectating were affected.

Now, I know that Max seems to hate introductory sentences which don't technically convey any information not conveyed elsewhere in the article, but which make the article much easier to read. I know that Bruce isn't the biggest fan of such sentences, either. However, if the information conveyed by them sums up well-cited paragraphs and simply makes the reader's job far, far easier, would it really be so bad if we just left them in the article? Look, if there are alternatives that preserve clarity but avoid the use of such sentences, I'm all for them. But I just don't see how such alternatives are possible. We've been taught since secondary school to structure our using the PEE format ─ Point, Evidence, Explain (we can skip the "Evidence" bit, obviously, since we have citations for that). How much would it hurt to follow this advice on Wikipedia? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

How about separate subheadings for the different technologies? i.e. Online chess, Engines, Tablebases? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary as we already have 3 subheadings. Adding any more is just going to make the section messier. Also, subheadings don't solve the problem of how we address the fact that the information contained in the section can be grouped into "major innovations in the 90s and 21st century" and "the impact of these innovations on chess study and spectating". The latter is a result of the totality of all of the former and hence wouldn't fit into any of the subheadings. Of course, we could always add another subheading called something along the lines of "impact of technology on chess". However, as I said, I think that would be one too many subheadings.

Can you explain exactly what you didn't like about the version that I am advocating, with the one-sentence paragraph that you call unnecessary? For example, is there any way that I could rewrite that paragraph to make it more useful? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to say, I had never heard of the PEE format.

Bear in mind that this is just supposed to be an introductory article. We shouldn't have long paragraphs, just lots of links to other articles. (That is one of my problems with the sections about the World Championship succession.) I realize that this creates new problems, e.g. what if the articles we are linking to are themselves weak. But if this section, or any section, is getting so substantial that it needs a lot of internal structure, that's a sign that we are off in the weeds. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a UK thing, but we're taught to use formats such as PEE, PEEL, SEXY, and similar in analytical writing in GCSE English.

I very much understand that this is an introductory article, and I'm happy with how concise the paragraphs have gotten ─ which is an improvement over my initial draft, which was rather wordy. However, that doesn't mean that we should completely throw readability out of the window. A very short, one-line sentence which links all the paragraphs together shouldn't hurt too much. To reiterate, a clear, easy-to-understand internal structure is not specific to, as you call them, substantial pieces of writing. I could write a 5-line essay with horrible internal structure, or I could write a 2000-word essay that doesn't require any structural work at all as the semantic progression is trivial. In this case, we are dealing with 2 distinct types of information (described earlier) which don't link to each other naturally, so structural work is required regardless of how concise we manage to make the section. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: @MaxBrowne2: So what's the verdict? Are we fine with me adding the (in my opinion absolutely necessary) one-sentence paragraph which holds the entire structure together? Also, what about speed chess? Should we bring it back, perhaps into the "growth" section? Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Not my preferred writing style, I don't believe in letting your writing be dictated by acronyms, but it's not all that important in the end. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that we wasted all this time on a sockpuppet of a banned editor. I would like to revert all their edits to this article per WP:BMB but I suppose it's not feasible at this stage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it's disappointing. And, the outcome was some additional sections and subsections that are plausible, and in which actual collaboration was involved. But, I would go along with the idea of reverting, if there is consensus for it.

After several months and perhaps 100 edits, it might not be practical to try to revert by mechanically pressing undo buttons. Perhaps ripping out sections 5.5 and 5.6, and parts of other sections and subsections, would do what needed to be done? Bruce leverett (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Just because he's banned doesn't mean he contributed nothing to the article or edited in bad faith. His ban was unrelated to chess (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldstone_James/Archive). I say work with what we've got. You say rip out sections 5.5 and 5.6. Do you object to splitting chess into pre-engine and post-engine eras? Given that all "eras" are arbitrary. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems like too much history for the main chess article. A better place would be in history of chess. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Not improvements

The lead was better before, certainly more neutral and less parochial. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd take out "each having a king and an army battling against each other in a simulated war." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted several recent changes, both to the lede and adding images. @Chaturaji: please discuss here before re-instating your changes. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Chaturaji's edits thus far (and their username) suggest a single purpose account only here to promote chaturaji and chaturanga. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Prefer to assume good faith. We all edit in our own areas of interest. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the deletion of "recreational and competitive". In the hope that this was not controversial, I'll redo it. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm generally more in favour of removing stuff from the lead than adding stuff to it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Introduction to Chess

Hey everyone. I just got a message saying that Draft:Introduction to chess could be deleted soon. I won't be on Wikipedia that much for a while, so if anyone wants to work on it feel free.  AltoStev ^Talk 02:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any need for such an article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There isn't much there at present, and what is there seems to be covered by Outline of chess. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Apparently it exists because someone in the last FAR for Chess was surprised there was no Introduction to chess article. I guess Outline of chess is essentially the same thing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

We could redirect Introduction to Outline, for people searching for that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

western chess, international chess, modern chess

Murray (1913) uses "modern chess" to refer to the game after the introduction of the mad queen, i.e. post-1500. Mark Weeks ([1]) uses it the same way. Otherwise I do not recall seeing this usage. Is it common in, for instance, India? (Searching for it using Google does not give very helpful results.) It should also be noted that there is an article about Modern Chess, which is a chess variant. It's not much of an article, but there it is.

I do not know how common the usage of "Western chess" and "international chess" are. As with "modern chess", searching for these via Google generates a lot of noise. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Anecdotally, a Chinese workmate referred to the game as "international chess", which is in fact the translation of the name the Chinese use for the game. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This game is not called ‘western Chess’ but rather European chess in all scholarly chess works including ‘A History of Chess’ by H. J. Murray who is the highest authority on this subject. This therefore needs to be changed to ‘European chess’. Chaturaji (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

European Chess

This game is not called ‘western Chess’ but rather European chess in all scholarly chess works including ‘A History of Chess’ by H. J. Murray who is the highest authority on this subject. This therefore needs to be changed to ‘European chess’. Chaturaji (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Murray's 1913 book does use the phrase "European chess". But that was over 100 years ago. What about in current and recent times? Also, it isn't clear at all that he uses "European chess" as a "thing". He seems to use it more in the sense of "chess as developed in Europe" around the 13th Century. I checked several chess encyclopedias and didn't find "European chess" at all. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Earlier versions of this article cited recent sources in referring to "Western chess" and "international chess". Specifically, this article [2] from 2005 uses "international chess" and quotes Kramnik using that term; and this article [3] from 2006 uses "Western chess" in its title. If you could find a recent article that uses the term "European chess" to distinguish that game from other (Asian) variants, one could justify using that term here.

It is true that Murray refers to the modern game as "European chess", but unless that usage has caught on (i.e. unless it is common enough that readers are likely to have seen it), it would be inappropriate to mention it in our lead paragraph. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note Please note that I have blocked Chaturaji for their continued edit warring (for which they were previously blocked) at various articles, most recently at Chaturanga. It is ironic that they consider Murray "the highest authority" on chess but then repeatedly edit in a tendentious manner (per their edit summary) and actually remove his book as a source. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

"Rating inflation", "title inflation" etc

You often hear about "rating inflation" and "title inflation" and "the grandmaster title doesn't mean what it used to" from casual commentators, but when Haworth and Regan did actual objective research, they found that this isn't actually the case. I don't think we need to give false equivalence to uninformed opinions. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Removing semi-protection

Why is such a basic, non-controversial page semi-protected? I believe it should be removed, as most articles should be free to edit and not require protection. Siccsucc (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the current semi-protection, but the general rules can be found at WP:PROTECT and specifically WP:SEMI.

Regarding "basic, non-controversial", if you press the "view history" button, you will see that this page is edited frequently, and there are frequently disagreements about it. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Among other things we've had Iranian and Indian nationalists pushing their POV about the origins of chess, people who take it upon themselves to rewrite the rules (and getting them wrong), people who argue about whether Fischer or Morphy or Kasparov is the GOAT, and people who insist on describing chess as a "sport" in the lead sentence. The bad edits generally come from IPs and new editors with agendas. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Whenever semi-protection is lifted there is a stream of either vandalism or disruptive edits. Check the page history. Pawnkingthree (talk)

per MOS:RELTIME, this article should avoid use of the term "current"

The word "current" is used in various places in the article, but the Wikipedia Manual of Style states that that word should be avoided.

This Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles ...

If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.[1]

Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date.

The information that "The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007" ... is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007".

from MOS:RELTIME

Wherever possible, we should fix the article to conform to this Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline.

- 05:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5C59:8693:519D:B173:5F5F:B3E4 (talk)

"Ajedrez" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ajedrez and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 6#Ajedrez until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Chess player number

I made an edit to mention that hundreds of millions, rather than just millions, of people play chess. Later, it was reverted due to being unnecessary, according to the edit summary. However, I believe that “hundreds of millions” more effectively illustrates chess’s popularity. Thoughts? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree. The difference between "millions" and "hundreds of millions" is significant. Do we have a reliable source estimating the number of chess players worldwide? Quale (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Whereas the word "millions" might be thrown around casually, the phrase "hundreds of millions" implies actual precision and is more likely to be challenged. That means, must cite reliable source.

Alright, I'm back. Is the United Nations a good source? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that looks good. I'll add it to the body and lead. Endwise (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it is pretty embarrassing to be using a blurb for World Chess Day as a source for an encyclopedia article. See WP:RS. Could you try to find where they got those numbers? Bruce leverett (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It apparently comes from research conducted by YouGov for FIDE/Agon. Here is a primary source[4] [5] on FIDE and a secondary source which mentions it: [6]. I'll update the article accordingly. Endwise (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no, that secondary source was wrong. It is an estimate done by FIDE itself some time ago, they just happened to quote it in that analysis which The New Republic didn't fact check properly. From FIDE's press release: In an official International Olympics Committee (IOC) submission a few years ago, FIDE cited the number of chess players worldwide to be 605 million. Yougov's analysis was only looking at five different countries, and they did not estimate the total number of players worldwide. Looking further, I came across these two blog posts about the figure: [7] [8]. It seems this is something FIDE has been claiming for an extremely long time; they put the number at "over half a billion" in 2000. The source for the 605 number seems to be a quite dubious unpublished estimate of FIDE's (which the author of those blog posts don't really believe). I don't think I really trust this figure anymore, but it does seem to have been repeated by many sources we'd normally consider to be reliable, so there's that. Endwise (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I see a lot of speculation and uncertainty about all the numbers, especially the often quoted "605 million". There are approximately 800,000 players on the FIDE rating list, and only a minority of players registered with their national federation have FIDE ratings. There are probably as many players again who know the rules but only play casually. So I think we have enough evidence to justify "millions", but not "hundreds of millions". Some further reading at a favourite source for wikiproject chess editors: "Nobody knows, even roughly, how many people play chess, and nobody should pretend to know." MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I'd definitely value the opinion of a chess historian like Edward Winter over what seems to be a very suspicious claim by FIDE. Possibly it could be mentioned in the body of the article somewhere that FIDE claims there are 605 million chess players, but some have called this estimate dubious. Regardless it would probably be better leaving it as "millions" in the lead for the time being. Endwise (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Association football says that that sport is "played by approximately 250 million players in over 200 countries and dependencies, making it the world's most popular sport." That claim is made in the lead paragraph, without a citation, but is repeated later in the article, with a citation of a study by FIFA. That claim says, "... regularly play football." The word "regularly" is presumably important. Is anyone aware of such a study regarding chess? Bruce leverett (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2022

change : "Harbour workers playing chess in Kotka, Finland in 1958" to "Harbour workers using chess pieces to play checkers in Kotka, Finland in 1958" or remove the picture altoghether. If you look closely, all the pieces are on dark squares, there are possibly three Kings and Queens on the board and the position does - if it were a chess game - would not make any sense. The harbour workers shown in the picture were obviously using chess pieces to play checkers. 2A02:A03F:618E:3100:B471:4439:3802:B6D (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done (kind of): I edited the caption to read that they were playing using chess pieces, so it no longer states they are playing Chess. If someone wants to remove the image altogether, as IP suggested, I won't object. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 16:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

re Movement

Could I suggest that as this paragraph covers the basic points, another point - even more basic, more helpful to beginners - be included? This is that (in the Staunton set at least) the distinctive shape of each main piece clearly indicates the form of the move it makes. 145.224.65.34 (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Caroline Ashley-Cooper

In the literature and in popular culture

@Dark Looon and Wretchskull: As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with using the preposition "in" twice in this way, and indeed, it may even make the sentence easier to follow for the reader, who may otherwise suppose that the article "the" applies to both "literature" and "popular culture". Bruce leverett (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. You perfectly described the kind of ambiguity that I want to avoid. Dark Looon (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Chess variants

Senterej ,old game in Ethiopia is one of the chess variants. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senterej Mek2022 (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Except For One Interruption

The portion of the Post-WW2 era of Chess where the FIDE controlled the title "except for one interruption" needs a source. Specifically about the interruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C700:38E3:1D95:1FBD:EB69:17BF (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Origin of chess

Dear all, I understand that the origins of chess are bit murky and that there is some desire among both Iranians and Indians to take the bulk of the credit for innovation of chess.

I am just a layman when it comes to history, but the complete lack of any mention of the persian form of the game Shatranj in the introduction seems a bit politically motivated given the centrality of this form both in the documented history, development and transmission of chess between east and west.

While there is no doubt that the most ancient predecessors of the game originate from India, it seems equally well established that the first complete descriptions of a game resembling modern chess are from persian/arabic sources (please correct me if I am wrong - again I am just a layman!). Also, from my understanding there is no doubt that the persian/arabic form of the game was the form that Europeans were initially exposed to when western chess was developed.

So the current statement "The current form of the game emerged in Spain and the rest of Southern Europe during the second half of the 15th century after evolving from chaturanga, a similar but much older game of Indian origin." seems to be positively misleading as Europans would not have been exposed to chaturanga at this time - rather something along the lines of would probably be more accurate "evolving from shatranj, a persian adaptation of chaturanga, a much older game of Indian origin."

I hope that these issues can be addressed in way that reflects the importance and primacy of both the original Indian form of the game as well as the deep historial influence of the subsequent Persian adaptation.

Again, I am not a historian, and would very much appreciate any corrections to my understanding! 155.91.73.3 (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

In the Predecessors subsection of the History section, there is a reasonably detailed description of the evolution of chess from chaturanga, mentioning shatranj as an intermediate form. This, not the introductory paragraph, is where we should be going into detail. It is OK, in the introductory paragraph, if we do not mention every important step in the journey from chaturanga to chess. It is not "politically motivated" -- I would remind you of WP:GOODFAITH. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, thanks for your feed-back, and also for referring to the WP:GOODFAITH - as you may have gathered, I am a novice at wikipedia editing. I whole-heartedly agree with you that the Introductory paragraph is not the place to delve into every detail in the historical journey fra chaturanga to modern chess. However, the point I am trying to make is that Shatranj is not just any other old detail - but one of the most pivotal in the documented history, development, transmission and spread of chess. To my understanding it is the first form of the game which we know for certain based on written sources had a reasonable resemblance to the gameplay of modern chess - and the originating chaturanga game may for all we know have been played very differently (I understand some sources believe it may have even been a dice game). Furthermore, to my understanding shatranj is the direct predecessor to the modern European forms, and most likely is also the predecessor to other modern forms (including modern Indian chess!) having been spread with conquests of the Arabs. Again, my historical understandings may be faulty, and I am happy to receive any corrections on these points. Nevertheless, it appears to me that the uniquely significant historical contribution of this form of chess warrants, if nothing more, than at least being mentioned in passing in the introductory paragraph. 84.213.28.158 (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Comparing the article shatranj with the Predecessors subsection I mentioned above, I would say that if you think the latter doesn't adequately summarize some aspects of the former, go ahead and try to improve it. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"Chesse" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chesse and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 19#Chesse until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Western [European] chess

From The Oxford History of Board Games, Parlett, 1999:

• "European Chess. Chess entered western Europe from Islam in the tenth century--perhaps earlier, but sporadically and unrecorded." (p. 299)
• "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 not 'a game' (and certainly not the game'), but a large family of related games, none of which is inherently superior to any other. They chiefly cover varieties of Chess which in the course of centuries have become the national games of individual countries and cultures, such as Chaturanga (Indian Chess), Xiang-qi (Chinese), Shogi (Japanese), and so on. From this viewpoint, International Chess is merely the 'national' game of Europe, and may be designated Modern European Chess to distinguish it from (for example) the medieval European game, which more closely resembled Chaturanga. Other family members are historical varieties that were once the standard game of particular countries and cultures but are now no longer played [...]." (pp. 276-77)

From New Rules for Classic Games, Schmittberger, 1992:

• "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." (p. 186)

--IHTS (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you should try to state clearly what specific changes to the article you have in mind. Nø (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

No change in mind, this sec was for justification re recent reverts. --IHTS (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"Rank and file (chess)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Rank and file (chess) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 20#Rank and file (chess) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

"Chesss" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chesss has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27 § Chesss until a consensus is reached. Mast303 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Origin of modern chess

An editor has modified the article as if Calvo's theory of the Spanish origin of modern chess was generally accepted. Is this warranted?

Comparable modifications have been made to History of Chess. Bruce leverett (tal) 17:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure. I know quite a lot about chess theory, and about chess history and literature from Lucena (1497) onwards... but as to the actual origins of the modern game, this is very obscure and specialized stuff with (as far as I understand it) much disagreement and speculation. From my lay point of view, the early literature (Lucena, Vicent and Scachs d'amor) appears to support a Spanish/Catalan origin for the modern queen and bishop moves. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Some of the important modern moves are Spanish in origin. However the claim the user is making, that Chess is a Spanish game basically, is a stretch. He also removed references to the arabs bringing it to both Spain and Sicily, which I restored.Barjimoa (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There was a discussion in early 2021, during the most recent FA review of Chess, about what sort of emphasis should be given to the change to chess rules at the end of the 15th century, introducing the present powers of the queen and bishop. See Talk:Chess/Archive 10#"Years active" in the infobox. User:Ioannes Pragensis argued that the new "mad queen" rules made chess almost a different game; I argued the opposite. But afterwards, I reread the relevant section of Murray (pp. 776-777 and further), and I concluded that Pragensis was correct, and also was adhering better to what Murray, our principal source for our material about the origins, was saying: "The changes in the move of the queen and bishop completely altered the method of play at chess." (p. 777) "Thus analysis came into being, and the game was played in a more scientific way." (p. 777) "The whole course of the game was quickened by the introduction of more powerful forces." (p. 777) "The reform meant that the greater part of the problem material that had been collected with such care became obsolete and useless. Against this the problemist fought a long but a losing battle." (p. 778) "The rapidity with which the new game displaced the old game was phenomenal." (p. 779) "The twelve Openings are for us the most important features of the work [referring to the Göttingen manuscript], and their appearance at all is a sign of the great difference which the adoption of the new moves of Queen and Bishop made in the nature of chess. Henceforward analysis—the investigation into the effectiveness of different methods of commencing the game—becomes the ruling motive in the literature of chess." (p. 783)

So I thought the wording of the infobox was correct, if somewhat cumbersome ("years=c. 15th century to present (predecessors circa 900 years earlier)"). I do not like having the infobox refer to another article for a basic piece of information. Likewise the passage in the lead section starting with "The current form of the game emerged ... in the second half of the 15th century ..." was correct emphasis, although it should not be referring to "Spain and the rest of Southern Europe" with such certainty, since that level of certainty is not supported by sources. And the section "Predecessors" should not have been renamed to "Origins". Bruce leverett (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I see your point and I have left a reference to the last major changes occuring in 15th century. Regarding the overall point my reasoning is that, given what the various sources states, the biggest mistake that can be made here is to pick a precise moment and place for the birthplace of Chess, it's an evolution over the centuries and throughout the countries of the world (hence picking a moment when the "predecessors" end and the "modern game" starts is problematic; whereas using nuanced words like "origins" or perhaps "roots" is more effective in conveying it was an evolution). The changes you highlighted in the move of the queen and the bishop are part of this evolution and are very important since they improved dramatically the mobility of the game, but a lot of Chess (the very basic concepts of the game, the board, the name and directional move of pieces, and much else) was already there and other stuff (pawn promotion to Queen, castling, en passant) had yet to be introduced or gain traction. Barjimoa (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Current lede sentences from major two-player abstract strategy board game articles

• Shogi [...] is a strategy board game for two players.
• Xiangqi [...] is a strategy board game for two players.
• Go is an abstract strategy board game for two players in which the aim is to surround more territory than the opponent.

--IHTS (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

".... is an abstract strategy board game" flows for me better than "is a strategy board game". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

IMO it c/ "frighten" off readers (beginners) already suffering from miscomprehension that chess is for brainiacs. (So "strategy", a common word, which links to abstract strategy, and is also spelled out in the Infobox, is better.) --IHTS (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't think we need to underestimate our readers. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC) It's hard to explain, just intuition, based on the language/literature I've been exposed to. I'm pretty sure the description "abstract strategy board game" is more common than "strategy board game". After all even Monopoly has strategy. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would never have guessed, but looking at abstract strategy game and strategy game, the former do not use dice, while the latter might, so we want to use "abstract strategy" here. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"Strategy" was linking to 'abstract strategy game'. --IHTS (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

IMO, beginner players come along to read the article, first thing they read is "Chess is an abstract strategy game", which equates in their heads to "Chess is an abstract game", totally feeding their previously held misconceptions that chess is only for brainiacs. Result: a turn-off. The unintended consequence is perpetuation of the misconception. --IHTS (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with IHTS that calling chess "an abstract strategy board game" in the first sentence of the lede might be unnecessarily obtuse for an article that should be generally accessible. Clinically precise language is more appropriate in articles about specialist subjects in math and science, but this article is not about graduate-level mathematics or research science. I don't actually understand the complaint that was lodged about the old lede since describing chess first as a two-player board game seems perfectly reasonable and informative as an opening statement that will be expanded upon. I think the wiktionary chess entry does a better job introducing chess than saying it's an abstract strategy board game, although I recognize that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and article leads should not be written like dictionary entries. ("A board game for two players, each beginning with sixteen chess pieces moving according to fixed rules across a chessboard with the objective to checkmate the opposing king.") Quale (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that abstract strategy board game is obtuse—I had to look it up, after all. But I think we ought to capture the notion that chess doesn't use dice, and also that it doesn't use things like face-down cards; I think those concepts deserve to be in the lead paragraphs, and I don't think they are already there (or did I miss something). Perhaps not in the first sentence, though. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed lede sentence

Chess is a board game for two players, called White and Black, each starting with sixteen chess pieces in their color, with the objective to checkmate the opponent's king.

Or:

Chess is a board game for two players, called White and Black, each controlling an army of chess pieces in their color, with the objective to checkmate the opponent's king.

--IHTS (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done --IHTS (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

photo of chess pieces at top of article

This is the photo that comes up when googling "chess". Why have such cheap-looking plastic pieces? 2A01:CB05:519:700:9980:9E93:F8E2:60EB (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative image on Wikimedia Commons you'd like to suggest instead? Edderiofer (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That set is prevalent at club level ("universally recognized" at least in USA), inexpensive yes, but that is good since chess is world-popular w/ key advantage that chess as hobby is low cost, therefore a better representative set for photo for WP article than photo of a $250-or-higher wood set. The plastic injection molds were thoughfully done in time-tested Staunton-inspired design. --IHTS (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Origin of Chess-where does black pieces came from?

As controversial as it is a lot has been said regarding chess origin however ,I wanted to add that BLACK from history perspective specialy in Africa should also be part of the history given that there are historical documents and photos showing that games similar to chess exsisted.So i ask anywone with editing access to add or link SENTEREJ so that more african chess historians could study further.Where does the concept Black came from?🙏🇪🇹 Meknoah (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The convention that White moves first does not have its origins in racism. Originally either White or Black could move first. It's because according to superstitions of the time the black pieces were considered more lucky or desirable, so in compensation the white pieces were allowed to move first. Over time the "white moves first" convention evolved and became one of the rules (relatively recently, in the 19th century). The opposite happened in checkers. We welcome Ethiopian or any other cultural perspectives on chess. Maybe you have some ideas for the Senterej article? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

In shogi and go, of course, Black moves first. (Where shogi pieces are undifferentiated in color; black go stones being made of slate.) --IHTS (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)