Talk:Chess/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Paragraph on Notation

The paragraph on notation at the end of Rules of Chess should be broken out into a separate section on notation -- it has nothing to do with rules, or the larger Game Play section that Rules of Chess is in. Done

Keep up the good work

Progress so far is very impressive. --Ideogram 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

FIDE Chess?

The article says "The game described in this article is sometimes known as FIDE Chess, Western Chess or International Chess to distinguish it from other variants."

Really? In my experience, Western Chess has limited usage, but I've never seen "International Chess" and I think "FIDE Chess" is a particularly unlikely term. Do we have a reference that shows these are actually used, or is this original research? 165.189.91.148 18:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving this recent comment from the archive, because I was hoping someone would have an answer. I too am not familiar with these terms and was hoping that someone would provide a reference. LloydSommerer 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the term "FIDE Chess" from the article, because in every case it is very rarely used. So even if well-referenced, it has no place there. Greetings,--Ioannes Pragensis 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the term "FIDE Chess" on chessvariants.com (along with "orthodox chess" and the portmanteau "orthochess"). It's a distinction that chess variant enthusiasts make, but few others have any need to. — Gwalla | Talk 05:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:-) I suspect that for a long time the Chess article was in hands of chess variant enthusiasts (and spammers, morons and random IP editors to say the full truth), so you are probably true.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

history and spread of the game

The article has "The game eventually reached Russia via Mongolia, where it was played at the beginning of the 7th century. It was introduced into the Iberian Peninsula by the Moors in the 10th century ... " and earlier today there was a "cite needed" at the end of that paragraph. (Now there is a reference.) But the book by Davidson that I have gives a different history of the spread of chess. I don't know what to do. Bubba73 (talk), 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Could you replace it by paraphrased Davidson, please? I think that the history part was originally based on Murray, which is still cited, but over 100 years old. So it seems better to follow Davidson, I think. (But I am not a chess historian, of course.)--Ioannes Pragensis 21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to do that sometime soon. I've ordered a used copy of the famous "Oxford Companion to Chess", and that might help, when I get it. Bubba73 (talk), 23:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a new book that says it has some history, but I don't have it: "The Immortal Game: A History of Chess, or How 32 Carved Pieces on a Board Illuminated Our Understanding of War, Art, Science and the Human Brain" by David Shenk. Bubba73 (talk), 23:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Both books look very promising. If you could get at least one of them, use it. Greetings,--Ioannes Pragensis 10:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I ordered a used copy of "oxford companion". I have the other on my Christmas wish list. If I don't get it as a present, I'll buy it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I got my copy of Oxford Companion. It is an encyclopedia with about two pages on the history (which I haven't read yet). Most things that need a reference can be referenced to this book. Bubba73 (talk), 20:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

order of sections

I think the section on how to record moves and strategy & tactics should go above the sections on history and culture. But I'm not going to change it without a consensus. Bubba73 (talk), 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This possibility has also its logic and I thought about it, too. The main reason against it was that the history section is more important for the general public while the strategy & tactics section is interesting only for readers who play chess. And the whole article is written for the general public, so the needs of this readers should be addressed first.--Ioannes Pragensis 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Early book

A citation is requested for "William Caxton's The Game and Playe of the Chesse (1474), one of the first books printed in English". I remember reading that it was the second book published in English; the first was the Bible. I can't find a reference for that, but perhaps in the two books I will have soon. Bubba73 (talk), 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You remember it right, it was probably the second book printed (if our records are complete - many early books are lost forever). I referenced it already.--Ioannes Pragensis 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that ref. I came looking for it! I'd disagree it's not first, tho. Recall, the Bible at that time would've been in Latin, not English. Trekphiler 09:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats why the references are. If you use the one I added in the article Chess, you will find that "The first book printed in the English language was the Recuyell of the Histories of Troy, issued, about 1475, at Bruges. (...) about 1475, a printed edition was issued, followed, shortly, by Caxton’s translation from two French versions of the Liber de ludo scacchorum of Jacobus de Cessolis, made by Jean Faron and Jean de Vignay." The first book even printed was the Gutenberg 42-line Bible in 1455, but it was Latin.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there any existing copies of williams book?

Random aspects of chess

Perhaps chess should be described as formally non-random but possessing elements of randomness in practice. Although the move rules do not allow for randomness, there is surely some randomness in practice, especially playing with clocks. For example, there must be some random error associated with setting the clocks at the start of play. Whether a flag falls or not is dependent upon a tiny error of calibration. There are also some random latency delays when playing online. There may also be some manual errors which occur randomly e.g. touching a piece. There is also randomness assumed in the strength of any player. Élő's central assumption was that the chess performance of each player in each game is a normally distributed random variable. JPF 13:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK John, but all your examples are about randomness in the clock, in Internet, in players etc. - but in the rules of the game itself there is no random element except the assignment of colour before the first game. Chess is a completely deterministic game, even if we chess players are somewhat random.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think those little bits of randomness are not significant enough to mention in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 23:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

New Template

I created the following template for all the Chess pages. I was goign to add it to the page but I wanted people's feedback before I did. Remember 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've now added it to the chess article because I wasn't getting any feedback. If anybody has a problem with it, let me know.Remember 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't comment on it, but I tjink it is a good addition. It might could link to a few more chess topics. Bubba73 (talk), 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not list Cessolis, Tim Redman, or Nathaniel Cook. I would link to list of chess topics because that takes you to almost everything else. I would also add World chess championship because many people are interested in that. Bubba73 (talk), 18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was the template removed? The comment said that he needed to be debugged. If it does, then this is probably too complex for me. Could someone help please. Remember 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It looked like it was working OK to me. Bubba73 (talk), 22:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On the gripping hand

I've heard of a 4-handed chess variant. Anybody know anything about it? Or where I can find out? Trekphiler 09:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Forchess sounds like what you are talking about. Bubba73 (talk), 01:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Earliest pieces

From the article: "The earliest chess pieces that have been authenticated date to the 7th century." According to the Oxford Companion, the earliest pieces that are known to be from a direct ancestor of modern chess date to the 7th century. There are older objects that may be from earlier predecessors, from other games, or not even game pieces. Since that is controversial, I didn't include it and simply stated that the earliest authenticated pieces come from the 7th century. Bubba73 (talk), 01:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The source uses the word "authenticated". Bubba73 (talk), 02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see some of these on the chess page

Massive intro section

IMHO, the intro section should really include only the essentials of the subject, with the rest in sections below. Does anyone disagree? I'm happy to have a stab at it and move material. --Dweller 16:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Probably only one paragraph for the intro. Bubba73 (talk), 19:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is impossible. If we wish to have it featured, we must keep WP:LEAD, and that means 1) intro must have 3 or 4 paragraphs of standard size, and 2) it must summarize the whole article.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

????From WP:LEAD: "It should be between one and four paragraphs long" --Dweller 13:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Read to the end, please. It states that for articles > 30,000 characters it should have 3-4 paragraphs. We have about 45,000 characters, so 4 paragraphs are must, I think.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that one. --Dweller 14:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I too disagree. The lead seems to be about the right length for an article of this size. I don't know that it covers the most important points of the article, but that wasn't the question. LloydSommerer 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the existing parags, I'd say parags 2 and 3 are bloated and too detail-ridden. Parag 4 seems unnecessary. If a Martian asked you "What is Chess?" what would you answer? --Dweller 13:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not speak with Martians, but I can easily imagine what would us the FARC guys say with 1 or 2 paragraphs in the intro :-) Keep in mind that we should fulfil WP:FA?, including "a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections" and of course all points of WP:MOS. We have absolutely no place for stylistic experiments, I fear.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really get all that jargon and am far too flu-ridden to follow the links, but I think I almost understand what you're saying. I might therefore have missed it, but what about responding to the points that the existing content may be overly detail-ridden and, in the case of parag 4, the wrong content to include, assuming one would replace it with a fourth paragraph to meet the (faintly ridiculous) demand for 4 paragraphs. --Dweller 14:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the jargon. The main idea is that you must think about the intro in terms of "shortened, summarized article" and not of "dictionary definition". We are working on an encyclopedia here, not on a dictionary. The intro must be comprehensive enough to give the casual reader all the substantial info in the whole article, not only the dry definition "what is chess". Because cumputers are very important in chess in the recent time, the intro should also contain something about computers. Wish you good health and merry Christmas! --Ioannes Pragensis 14:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the FA Monopoly (game), it has two, nicely crafted paragraphs. The first explains in brief that it is a game and the outline premise on which it works, without defining the pieces or other points of detail.

The second paragraph explains why it's such a notable game and this is probably the biggest failing in the lead section for Chess - it doesn't really address this issue at all! Do we have some stats for how widespread the game is? Can we find a citation for oustanding chess play being a hallmark of genius, or something similar? --Dweller 16:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Monopoly has been featured in 2004, with much weaker criteria. Today at least three paragraphs were needed for an article of such length. - Regarding the notability explanation, you are true, it would be nice to have a citation about the spread of chess - for example soumething from FIDE website (number of national federations, number of registered players...) - feel free to add it where appropriate.--Ioannes Pragensis 16:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like linking to blogs, but here scroll down to "Chess governance - Time to change?" it says

Chess is a major sport with 40-45 million people (according to CBS and other sources) who know how to play the game in the United States and 700 million around the world. More than 160 countries are members of FIDE.

We could say how many people are in the USCF, FIDE, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 16:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've found this: [1] linked from Google answers http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=700236. --Ioannes Pragensis 18:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I added it. Check it after me, please.  Done--Ioannes Pragensis 19:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add the citation? --Dweller 10:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the reference in the body of the article, no need to cite it two times, I think.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Being bold, I've moved Ioannes' find and slightly adjusted the order. I think it makes sense to open with history, follow with modernity (and notability) and then tail off with the other issues. This means that I've actually added a paragraph for readability, but to balance that I've much reduced the bloated paragraph which dealt in some detail with mechanics. --Dweller 10:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

post-war era

The article has changed to say "... ruled by FIDE, who have, since then, controlled the title. " It used to say that FIDE controlled the title "for decades". Actually about 1993 the then champion Kasparov split off from FIDE and started the seperate series of title matches. So from then until this year there was the confusing state of having two champions. There was no clear champion. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

modern history

The modern history is mostly about the world championship matches. I think there needs to be more than that. Some other things to consider would be human vs. computer matches, tournaments for computers only, maybe some major tournaments and maybe some non-champion players. And the growth of scholastic chess. Bubba73 (talk), 04:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that probably needs to be included is something about chess publications - books and magazines, and software. Bubba73 (talk), 06:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Computer chess is described in the Mathematics and computers section, but all other aspects may be slightly more elaborated.

CONGRATULATIONS & THANKS TO ALL who helped to keep this article featured.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is "we"?

The comment "rv - the caption was better before; this is an overview article, we prefer nice captions over exact and ugly here" which attepts to rationalize the recent edit of the Persian image caption is unacceptable, as is the mentality behind it. I do not know who "we" is here, I would hope that this kind of "moral" attack is not condoned by the other editors.

That description was part of the article for a long time (a year or two), it was correct, it is now properly sourced, and it adds context and meaning to what is otherwise a somewhat inscrutable scene. It was only about a week ago that the novel, and incorrect, caption was posted and it is not an improvement. This is not a chess book, it is an encyclopaedia. Why oppose an open, informative format in favor of a closed, misleading one? Haiduc 13:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The caption was correct before and is still correct now. But now it is shorter and easier, which was the point of my edit. This aricle is about chess and not about old Persian history. Everybody interested in this image can click on it and read the full description. Please use more quiet tone in your posts, this is a place for content discussions and not for flamewars (see WP:CIVIL).--Ioannes Pragensis 14:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The "newer" caption is relevant for an article about Chess. --Dweller 14:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Shorter and easier" is a bit late, when you already showed your hand by calling it "ugly." We all understand exactly the true point of your edit. The censored caption is inappropriate, even if not belligerently moralistic like the "exact and ugly" homophobic slur. If we were to include this image in the article on Sufism (which is the tradition it comes from) we would not say "Sufis playing a board game" claiming that it more relevant for being more vague. Your novel idea to purge the caption of any homosexual references was not a good one, please revert it to the original formulation so we need not drag this out any further. Haiduc 14:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Chill and assume good faith. Ioannes Pragensis does not have a native command of English (see his user page) and his comments should be read as such. It's nothing to do with any homophobic tendencies. --Dweller 15:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I will be happy to assume good faith when the correct caption is reinstated. Otherwise, forgive me, but this article will be marked POV. IP is very fluent in English, what is so complicated about "ugly"? Haiduc 15:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Taking this to your talk page... --Dweller 15:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not take offense. I had no slightest idea that the picture or you have a relation to homosexuality. "Ugly" was really short for "too complicated and concentrating the attention on players instead on the game, while the article is about the game", nothing less and nothing more. As a solution, I suggest to drop the whole first sentence from the description. What do you think about it?--Ioannes Pragensis 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have an even more elegant solution for you, and one that does not rob the reader by decontextualizing. "Youth playing chess with suitors; Persia, mid 1500s [2]" It replaces a twenty-word caption with an eight-word caption and a link to the Smithsonian Institution for those who want to follow thing up further, and is no longer in conflict with the text which places shatranj in Persia in 600CE and not 300CE. But attempting to maintain that the image is what it is not at the cost of its homophilic content is not sustainable as npov. Haiduc 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Persian Youths Picture is highly misleading

Although the article says that the most commonly agreed upon place for the origin of chess is India, this picture of Persian Youths is VERY VERY misleading. It is only fair that that picture is moved down to somewhere else and the picture is replaced with a picture of ancient Indian chess players or chess games.

Wikipedia is contradicting itself by saying chess was invented in India and displaying a picture claiming Persian invention of the game of chess. There is a very famous painting showing Radha and Krishna playing chess. This will truly convey the message that the game of chess is deeply rooted to Indian culture and will fairly acknowledge the contributions the people of India have made to the modern world.

Darkness1089 00:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the picture that you have posted, and I hope it can be in the article. However, there are a couple of problems. First of all, I disgree with you that this is a zero sum game and that the Persian illustration "misleads". It does no such thing, there is no contradiction anywhere, and I would like to think we can continue this discussion on a non-combative footing. My concern with your image is that it is not sourced and not dated. It would be better if you could provide that information. The value of providing these images is in giving the reader a glimpse into an authentic tradition from long ago. We know for sure the Persian image is almost five hunderd years old. What can you say about the one of Krisna? Is it from the 1800s? The 1700s? I would not give it much more than that, but I look forward to being proven wrong. Haiduc 01:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Scholastic tournament image

I have removed image Sch10.jpg. Pictures of children are problematical. In some jurisdictions, including the US, parental permission for each of the children is needed for publication. TerriersFan 00:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your action and your logic. The new picture is of lesser quality than the one you removed, and the logic of American law has nothing to do with a photo of German kids. Pretty soon we will be reminded that Yemeni laws requires face veils on all women, as a reason for removing unveiled faces. Haiduc 01:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that Wikipedia is subject to US law; it is not subject to Yemeni law. There is also very obvious considerations relating to the privacy of minors. TerriersFan 01:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree 100%, by your standards all child pictures would have to be removed. If you have something to support your argument I would appreciate seeing it. In what concerns the present situation I will let the other editors here decide how to handle this. Haiduc 02:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know (IANAL), there are no US laws that would apply specifically to (non-pornographic) images of children as opposed to those of adults, save that contracts (including model releases) involving children must be signed by their legal guardian rather than the child themself. As for whether a release is needed, there seems to be a big gray area. Some (unofficial) guidelines can be found on Dan Heller's model releases primer; in particular, the example in section 6.4 may be instructive, since it deals with a similar case (but see also section 8.1).

Anyway, since this is a Commons image, and since we are not using it here in a manner that would make the need for a release greater than usual (we're not using it in a derogatory manner or to promote or express support for "a product, idea, political or religious view"), I'd suggest that the proper place for discussing this is on Commons. If a model release is required for using this image here in this article, then I'd expect one to be almost certainly required for merely including it on Commons, in which case it should be deleted there. Conversely, if the image is found to be suitable for Commons, I see no reason not to use it here (except that it's not really a very high-quality image). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact there are; see Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Whilst this Act does not specifically mention images the rules encompass them. Whether this particular image needs a release is a grey area and a matter of interpretation. However, we should play safe and not take the slightest risk of putting the Project at risk for sake of an image. There is, though, a further consideration - these days many parents are (rightly or wrongly) becoming more protective of their children. Posting recognisable images on the Internet, without suitable releases, is not socially responsible. TerriersFan 00:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If I might interject, this is an argument which TerriersFan needs to bring up with the Wikipedia authorities. If he can convince them of the rightness of his view and they send down a regulation to that effect, then we shall follow it. Until then this all legalistic theorizing has no purpose or place here. As per Ilmari Karonen, this is a legitimate picture from the Commons, case closed. Haiduc 15:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? According to the FTC, a photograph counts as personal information only "when associated with other information collected online that would enable the physical or online contacting of the individual."[3] I don't believe this case satisfies that requirement, since all we have is the name of the school this event was held at. Also, whether or not photograps actually qualify as personal information, what COPPA specifically regulates is "collect[ing] personal information from a child" (Title 13 § 1303(a)(1)). We're not doing that here; any personal information we may have comes from the uploader, who has not claimed to be a child. (At the link given above, the FTC has explicitly stated that COPPA does not apply to third parties who have received the information from someone other than the child in question.) So, while nothing in law is absolutely certain until the case is closed and all appeals have been exhausted, I really do not believe that COPPA is in any way relevant to our use of pictures not uploaded by a child. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree,who would want them on the net with out permission.

Images

I removed both the Origins and Organized play images - I think that they are not of key importance and it is better to live without them than to have edit wars here. Please do not give them back unless we have a consensus here about them and their descriptions. Thank you.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not acceptable. The Krisna image may be worthwhile if properly sourced. Otherwise the Persian image is fine. The children's tournament image is fine also, unless and untill someone comes up with a properly documented argument for removing it. Let's not be put off by obstacles, but see the process through. It will make for a better article. And don't be concerned about jeopardizing the featured status - if things are done expediently and correctly they are simply part of the process. Haiduc 08:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc, please suggest here the images and their decriptions. After all concerned people, including me, you, TerriersFan, Darkness1089 and SubSeven will be OK, I have no objections against Persian and whatever images. But I am strongly against edit wars in Featured articles, because it can easily endanger their featured status (WP:WIAFA, 1e). I sacrificed a lot of work to this article to keep its featured status and I do not wish to lose it because of two images.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very aware of that, which is why I have tried to tread even more judiciously than usual and to concentrate strictly on editorial issues. As far as the images go, I propose the following. If the gentleman who contributed the Indian illustration can document it and it turns out to be of venerable age (I realize this is vague, but all is relative) then I think it should be kept, and there will be no room for the Persian picture, the article is already quite packed. If it is of recent vintage the the Persian image should go back with the short and accurate caption I suggested.

As far as the questionable deletion of the children's tournament, if the user provides evidence of Wikipedia policy to support his action, then it has to go. If not, the deletion is inexcusable and must be reverted -- it is quite a nice image and valuable for the article. If anyone gets hot under the collar, let's discuss on user pages. Haiduc 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I am not very happy with the Indian picture, because of its rather mythical nature. I would prefer the Persian one, if it is really very old (at least 600 years old, from the shatranj time), but with a very short description not containig "homophobic" or "homophilic" words; for example "Persian shatranj players, c. 1200" would be acceptable for me - the same way like our picture of noble chess players from Germany. Another good possibility is no picture, because the article is about the modern chess and not about shatranj.

Regarding the Competitive play section, I do not like any of the two images (Scholastic tournament and Chess congress), because they do not look like professional photos. Therefore I vote against them.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you explain what looks unprofessional about the congress picture I will fix it. All the pictures of modern play have now been removed leaving a bunch of old and historical photos. I have no problem with some historical photos being there but the present structure makes chess look a pastime of the past and out of touch. I am about to upload another modern picture; I hope that a broader view is taken. TerriersFan 00:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have preferred the Scholastic tournament in the article since it is a very eloquent image of what chess is like at present. That is the nature of Wikipedia, that we postpone perfection in favor of the good. Let's take a chance and stick it in, it is much more engaging than the one of the congress. As for the Indian image, the posting editor has not responded to any of my inquiries about the provenance of the picture, so I suggest that we replace it with the one from the Haft Awrang. It is without a doubt from the mid-1500 (1555-1565 if I am not mistaken) and illustrative of the discussion. As for the caption, I will accept "Persian man and youth playing chess," or "Persian man and youth at chess." It is a bit less informative than I would like, but I do not want to keep pressing that old point. Haiduc 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, 'taking a chance' is not the way to go. If there is the slightest risk of a problem we should play safe - see above. This is a chess article; not a test case on the law or an experiment in 'freedom of publication'. Now, let's move on ... TerriersFan 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It would have been better if you had provided a reference for your alarmist theories when I wrote to you on your user page requesting one, but you have not, and only replied with vague and dubious threatening noises that have not convinced anyone. There are two users here who refute your unsupported argument. As for taking a chance, I was addressing IP's presumed concern that people would destabilize the article by engaging in an unseemly tug-of-war if he was to restore the picture you so summarily deleted. But I am sure you would do nothing of the sort, so it is not a very big chance to take, is it now?

So what are we left with? Your deletion of an existing image that, if not of the best quality, at least has some color and drama and reader interest, with one of equally low quality which is static and colorless to boot. This is not a place for you to test apocalyptic theories about innocent pictures of children, so let's do by all means move on. Haiduc 02:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Persian image again, as I cannot see a clear consensus about it here. I personally think that the image does not belong here - it is too young to be in the Predecessors section (around 1550, "normal" chess was already played). "Consensus" means something like "at least five editors voted, at least three of them are for the image with this caption", I think. Thank you for understanding, Haiduc, and wish you a Happy New Year.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm happy with the image for its beauty, as well as its historicism, but the caption should include only information useful for an article about chess. During the FARC I removed extraneous material from a number of captions in this article. --Dweller 08:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am against the Persian image, because it is in fact not a chess image, but a shatranj image - from a time when our chess was already about 100 years old. So it is an anachronism for purposes of the Chess article. In the article about shatranj, I would be also happy with it, but with another caption - it is inappropriate to have the captions unnecessary complicated and it is impossible to have such external links there (WP:EL).--Ioannes Pragensis 16:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That is pure sophistry and an absurd splitting of hairs - the section is about the history of chess and the picture clearly depicts an early example of the use of the game. You have been dancing around this image and its caption with a million conflicting excuses, none of them credible and several offensive and unworthy of what should be an impartial and unbigoted discourse. It is very unfortunate that you insist on politicizing what should be an article devoted to chess. If this is not fairly resolved I intend on placing a POV tag on the article and taking matters further. Haiduc 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The POV is all coming from your direction. No-one else here has an axe to grind about homosexuality, either philo or phobic. We're only interested in an article about chess. --Dweller 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If that were true we would not be having this interminable diatribe over two words. And we would be concentrating on cleaning up the text, which I found in very poor condition and have been trying to bring to a semblance of literary English. Haiduc 20:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have decided not to pursue this any further. Do as you see fit. Haiduc 05:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We should show anything related to chess,let's try to have a better chess page.

Rules of chess

The article is still slightly unwieldy and I think it's because we're caught between telling people how to play chess and giving the overview that is appropriate. I think that sections such as that which spells out the intricacies of when one cannot castle are OTT and should point to the Rules of chess sub article. Any consensus? --Dweller 12:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but on the other side, a good and relatively complete overview of rules of the game is the most important thing in an article about a game. I believe that many casual users will search the article just because they are not sure whether they are allowed to castle :-) so we should IMHO have these basic rules here. Of course it is possible to shorten e.g. the rather lenghty description of shatranj rules in the History section.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes like World Book we at wikipedia should at least have rules for chess.

Check by more than one piece

Once again, the phrase about checking by "one or possibly two pieces" has been changed to "one or more" pieces. I added a sentence about the most that can be in a legal position is two, but I'm not completely happy with that. Bubba73 (talk), 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked your wording slightly. Please let me know (or just retweak) if you feel it can be improved. IronDuke 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, two or three times the "one or two" has been changed to "one or more", so let's see if that stands. Bubba73 (talk), 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the bracketed sentence needs to be in there at all. --Dweller 10:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be needed. But I think that three times it has been changed from "one or possibly two" to "one or more". Two is the most that can happen in a legal game. Bubba73 (talk), 14:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the line on check can be condensed into something like "When a king is under direct attack, the king is said to be in check". It is reasonably obvious that the king will not be under attack from its own pieces, and really the number of pieces which are attacking it is of small consequence, in either case the rule is the same: the player must make a move which brings the king out of check. That the king must move when placed in double check is not a consequence of any special rule, but that the two other ways of getting out of check (interposing or capturing) will not get the king out of a double check. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. In the past I've objected to it saying "one or more" since two is the maximum in a legal game. However, "one or more" is technically correct, so I'm not going to change it again. And there is a technicality, if I remember the rules correctly. Under USCF rules (but not FIDE!) if an illegal move occurred more than ten moves ago, it isn't corrected. Therefore, someone could be in check for more than ten moves, neither one noticed it, and then a move placed it in double check, so a total of three pieces checking. But that is far too much detail to put in the article. I'll go along with "one or more", or your good suggestion. Bubba73 (talk), 15:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The number of pieces giving check is irrelevant to this article. It's more appropriate for the rules article. --Dweller 15:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say, "one or more" where "more"="two and only two" kinda bugs me. Fine by me to just leave out the detail. IronDuke 17:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. I've made a change - see if it is OK. Bubba73 (talk), 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not bad, but I don't know if "pieces" is great here, as it vaguely implies that more than one piece is usually involved, when the opposite is the case. I hope I'm not being too nit-picky. I will keep thinking about it. IronDuke 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How about:

1. When a king is under direct attack by the opponent, the king is said to be in check. or
2. When a king is under direct attack, the king is said to be in check. Bubba73 (talk), 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sport?

Please do not feed the trolls

Since when is chess a sport?71.102.144.27 08:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is the ultimate sport - one of the mind and not the body. Rarelibra 04:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

According to sport, it isn't necessarily atheletic. Bubba73 (talk), 04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source for itself. I think it needs reliable source. Hessam 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oxford American Dictionary says it is physical, but Merriam-Webster Collegiate says "a source of diversion: ecreation". Bubba73 (talk), 04:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Chess is recognized as a sport by the International Olympic Committee with their world governing bodies represented in the Association of the IOC Recognised International Sports Federations. See: http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/recognized/index_uk.asp Giovanni33 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that about sums it up. Thanks, Giovanni! :) Rarelibra 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a sport of the mind to make a long story short.

Permanent Semi-Protection Needed

Of course, such a thing does not exist. All conscientious editors must waste half of their time in a neverending way reverting ridiculous vandalism again and again and again ... Forget about banning these lunatics! Forget about recommending that these lunatics be banned and seeing action taken by administrators! We must now arbitrate with them and weakly beg the vandals to stop (which they know they do not have to). Forget about protecting pages ourselves as editors! We have less power than the vandals! We must now beg administrators to do so via even more red tape! Of course, the administrators will not do it most of the time because they do not care, do not have time to investigate the issue or are overworked. Forget about seeing semi-protection from unregistered users except on a temporary basis and without automatic renewal.

Thank you, No Guru, for notifying the vandals that a recent "sprotection" notice was just a bluff. That spurred a renewed rash of vandalism! If Jimbo Wales were a real, working editor, he would realize that vandalism is all that most unregistered users are interested in and put a stop to it. This article is messed-up by sick obscenities about 1/4 of the time in every 24 hour period. Any innocent newcomer to Wikipedia who reads it in that state is likely to think that everyone involved with Wikipedia is dysfunctional. I just don't think I can stand the bizarre editorial policies of this "experiment in world democracy" any longer. --AceVentura

Weakest square comment in Opening section

The last paragraph in the Opening section reads "The square f7 is known as the weakest square on the board. It is only protected by the black king. White players target this square for a quick checkmate." I'm thinking that f2 is only protected by the white king, at least last time I looked. So if this comment is going to stay, shouldn't it be fleshed out a bit to include the two weakest squares? But I think that identifying the weakest squares on the board for the initial position may not be strictly germane to the opening ... but it's not a really strong opinion. Ian McKinney 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that something sounds wrong about it. When black and white castle queenside, wouldn't the c7 and c2 squares be considered the weakest? Dionyseus 02:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"As of 2005, it was estimated that 285 million people play online."

This claim needs to be cited. Dionyseus 02:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cited in the footnote 50 or so. Read the whole article, pls, before writing here. :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 19:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the cite. I don't believe it. I reckon it's cr*p. No survey is cited. The ICC has 30 THOUSAND members. Rocksong 08:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more numbers: Internet Chess Club has 30000 members, about 2500 online at any one time. FICS has a membership of 150000. Playchess.com (part of Chessbase) claims to be the largest, with 5000 members online at any one time, so maybe they've slightly over the 150000 at FICS, if they are it's not by much. The other sites appear to be smaller. I think the total number of online players would struggle to reach 1 million. Yes I know this is WP:Original Research, but the 285 million number is so obviously wrong that sometimes you have to WP:Ignore all rules. Rocksong 12:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that I think it's less.

Image: Young and old

This article is full of old photos that promote a musty, stuffy and old fashioned image of the game. It is desperately in need of some modern images. Consequently, I am concerned at the removal of the 'Young and old' image. I am reinserting it since IMHO it benefits the article. If an editor still objects then please make the point here and see if you get consensus. Unilaterally removing material without talk page discussion is an inappropriate way forward. One of the appeals of chess is that it enables competition across the generations and can be played by the very young and the very old; this is a factual and valid point to make. TerriersFan 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry, TerriersFan, but we are writing an encyclopedia here and not an advertisement for chess clubs. Therefore the image of the game is not our concern here. The article already has a lot of high quality images and this one bears no important encyclopedic information.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Prune History Section

Why does the history section cover subject matter already covered in World Chess Championship? Would there be objections to a substantial pruning of this section? Rocksong 23:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is in according with WP:SUMMARY - no need to prune here IMHO. World Chess Championship should contain much more details (so please expand this article) but it does not mean that we should substantially shorten Chess. Greetings,--Ioannes Pragensis 08:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This Chess article mentions nearly every World Championship match. That is way too much detail IMHO. IMHO it needs 3 paragraphs on the World Championship since 1886: one for 1886-1946 (no system), one on 1948-1993 (FIDE), and one on 1993-2006 (title split then unified). And maybe one on the "Fischer boom". Anyway, that's just my opinion. I won't do a wholesale prune unless there's a consensus. Rocksong 09:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

suggested correction: length of a game

The chart at the right says that games last from 10-60 minutes, with some up to 7 hours. However, they can certainly be shorter. There are two minute speed games. This should be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.231.168.144 (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Do you see the footnote under the table? It is mentioned there. Of course the game can last for two seconds, if the partners make one move each and agree a draw. But the majority of casual chess games without time control last between 10 and 60 minutes, as mentioned there.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe chess can vary from a match being a couple minutes in Blitz league to 100 minutes or so in a championship.

Internet Redundancy

"The popularity of online chess coincided with the growth of the Internet, which started in the mid 1990s."

The previous statement is redundant and unecessary; "the popularity of online chess" obviously "coincided with the growth of the Internet" as with no Internet, there is no "online". I will change. Bredd13 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not really redundant, though it could be worded better. The point is, as soon as the Internet became accessible, people began using it to play chess. Rocksong 03:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Online chess is more social than using a simulator like Deep Blue by IBM but does internet chess have chat capabilities?I believe it depends on the site according to what i've been told.