Talk:Chess/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Variants: One more line.

To the person who locked the article, I would like added another point in the variant section that would read like this:

• Variants that make use of multiple boards, such as 3D Chess or Alice Chess.
  
  24.79.40.48 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, I have added your examples to the text. SyG (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Improvement to Chess Template

I think we have many chess articles, but the current chess template is quite basic. We could expand it to include many articles on chess, which would greatly discoverability and ease of navigation. I have updated the current chess template in my sandbox - User:Abhishikt/sandbox. Can you guys take a look at that and let me know your comments/suggestion. Please note that it is still work in progress. Abhishikt (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I did my bit of improvement to the template and updated it. A goal in updating template was to improve discoverability, so I have tried to incorporate many articles, so there could be more important terms, which are part of an article present in template, but are not mentioned separately. Abhishikt (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Persian Origin of Chess

Professor Lewis is a prominent scholar in middle eastern studies so when he says that chess was invented by Persians his opinion should be considered. Please note the most reliable sources in Wikipedia are: [peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses]. Iranic (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Viswanathan Anand, winner of last 4 world chess championships, told that Chess was invented in India. He told that recently when he was won 2012 world chess chamipionship. I would give more credibility to Anand than some Prof. -Abhishikt (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Chess historian Murray (A history of Chess (1913)) states chass came from India. It's an old book but I think a lot of recent books agrees with that. For sure, we must say there's no consensus in sources about who invented chess. Mainly cited place is India but there's other theories pointing to China or Persia.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but is very misleading put a source from a non-chess book saying something and 4 different chess books saying another thing.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Winner of Last 4 or 4000000 chess championship is not a reliable source for Wikipedia article. I haven't removed your references but none of them are scholarly works and can't be use as secondary sources. You are not allow to use 1913 works as secondary sources either (even scholarly works). please revert your changes and do not waste my time and yours on such issues. you simply can't remove things because you don't like them. Iranic (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Why we can't use a source from 1913 if it's still highly accepted by scholars as a reference work? It's not a matter of like. Chess historians are still debating from where chess came. Despite it's an open debate with theories involving China, Afeganistan, Turkistan, etc most of them agrees chess came from India. You are unbalancing this article with a single source to prove a point of view scarcely supported in chess books. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with OTAVIO1981. What exactly does the age of a work have to do with its accuracy? Are Einstein's theories of special and general relativity from that same time period invalid because they are 100 years old by now? There are countless historical AND chess books that state chess was invented in India. Meanwhile, the only source for it being invented in Iran is a single professor who does not even specialize in chess history. That's a fine example of a fringe theory being pushed as the truth. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The logic of chess strategies

After you play computer checkers for a while you get the understanding that all the moves of the game are a part of a matrix of possible, which in checkers is not very complicated. And in Chess we are undoubtedly moving around in a matrix of possible moves which is much more complicated. And the best players are those that best understand what might be called the "areas in their favor" related to the resulting possibilities of the matrix.WFPM (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are the Indian and Islamic influences in "pre-modern" culture?

In the section, Place In Culture: Pre-Modern, there is a glaring lack of mention of Indian and Islamic influences. These were, after all, the first milieus for the game, as explained in the section, Predecessors. This analysis should be included in this article. Retrospector87 (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

History of chess

Having just started again on the nightmare that is history of boardgames and wikipedia. It is obvious that there are plenty of authors who accept the origins of chess as being India, but a little care has to be taken when using an author citing another author.

The issue arises with chaturanga this is a single literary reference with minimal details and has no bearing on the information on the wiki page. The second mention that would seem consistent is shatranj which is a better article but still suggests many facts that are unsupported and inconsistent with other items around.

In the 9th century then we have some literary evidence that gives greater weight to the earlier references being a chess type game. However, it should be noted that there are much earlier games with two players each playing as a city from over 1000 years ealier

But the earliest confirmed artefact I believe is the Lewis chessmen. The problem arises is that there are Roman artefacts that are identical to chess boards the image I found was on goddesschess which is down. There are some early carved animal pieces 2nd C which could also be chess but more likely some Senet.

The issue is that there are numerous descriptions that have no facts to back them up as they are presented in the timeline. Why are images of modern chessboards used for Chatranga and Ashtapada there is a distinct lack of carvings of any thing which looks like a chessboard in the region and there is no literary record until around 12th century that documents any game thouroughly enough to be sure.

While the xiangqi theory predating the persian variant seems unlikely from the use of the elephant as a piece, when stating "another theory" there is no need to have "although this has been contested" especially when what is added is not much of a source neither peer reviewed nor a book.

I am lacking the sources in order to rewrite this properly but all that is really known is that there is an unknown protogame between chess and xiangqi and that India is a likely candidate.

Several of the blue links need careful examination as to if they reflect the idea as mentioned in RS or are modern made up versions of rules. Although it might count as WP:OR there is no real likelihood that the protogames were played on an 8x8 board even the Ilse of Lewis has several spare pieces.Tetron76 (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess is probably a better place to discuss this. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

since this affects several pages I will move the conversation to where you suggest but my current criticisms were focused on the current page.Tetron76 (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with several of your points. What is your proposal exactly ? SyG (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a difficult fix but I want to start with a timeline that removes any individual authors opinion. So this is the literary reference to the proto-games and make it clear that there is no game as in artefact or rules that can be fixed with this.

I think the widely held opinion is that the game originated in India assuming this to be an accurate summary of the sources it should be stated as such and if alternative hypotheses are given that these should not come with a name or analysis but stated: "alternative theories have been proposed suggesting origins from China" , etc...). I see that already since I started this someone has expanded the scenarios further still. The first step has to be to strip back to the facts before adding the notable opinions.Tetron76 (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand precisely what you were proposing when you first raised concerns about wikipedia articles concerning the history of chess, but I think I agree with what you suggest here. The recent addition of the Afghanistan theory seems out of place in the main chess article. Instead it merits discussion in History of chess. (I took a quick look at the Lindstrom paper supporting the Afghanistan origin theory and didn't find it very convincing. As far as I can tell the only real evidence is some figurines, supposed to be game pieces, although appears to be absolutely no evidence to suggest that that game was chess or even related to chess. Also no evidence suggesting how the pieces may have moved, no game rules, no boards. It seems like pure guesswork to me.) Quale (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible correction

The article says "Each player begins the game with sixteen pieces: one king, one queen, two rooks, two knights, two bishops, and eight pawns" but to be technical pawns are not pieces, they are pawns. It might be more correct to say "Each player begins the game with eight pieces one king, one queen, two rooks, two knights, two bishops, in addition to eight pawns." Calcoolidgefan (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See definition at Glossary of chess#Piece. FIDE, and Wikipedia chess articles, consider "pieces" to describe all the men, including pawns. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Chance element

Against "Random chance" the article states "None", yet also "Most players and theoreticians consider that White, by virtue of the first move, begins the game with a small advantage." So how is white chosen if not by random chance? (The fact that black and white may alternate is not relevant when considering a single game.) 86.179.6.55 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think they are talking about once the game has started there is no random chance. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the playing of chess involves both the calculation of probabilities of various opportunities plus the selection from them of an individual action there is certain to be a random chance factor involved with the selection when the probability factors become equal for the various alternatives, and particularly when a computer problem is involved.WFPM (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. "There's a 30% chance he moves the pawn, a 20% chance he moves the rook" ??? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Random chance usually refers to games with dice or cards, in chess there is perfect information, I see the same things as my opponent. There really is not chance in the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calcoolidgefan (talk • contribs) 04:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think User:WFPM means if a player or computer can't decide between two moves, they might mentally (or programmatically) "flip a coin". But that's still a measure of skill (human) or programming quality (computer). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WFPM said "Since the playing of chess involves both the calculation of probabilities of various opportunities...". I've been playing the game for 46 years and I've never calculated a probability. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about the computer programing process where the decisions about the next move (and sequence of moves) has to be quantified as to their relative merit. And then if we run into equal probability calculations, have to have a random selection process to chose which one to use. If not so there would never be any variation in the decision process, and you might as well play Tic-tac. And I'm quite sure that if you drive a car or play bridge or checkers you're always involved in probability calculations, some of which involve a high degree of differential equations calculations.WFPM (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Incidentally, I note that in computer chess you can take advantage of the computer program by letting it always be white and have the attack strategy responsibility while you merely develop a less demanding defensive strategy, and then by cheating by taking back your defective short term moves you can advance the end game to the basic strategy of the game, which seems to lie in the successful advancement of your pawns.WFPM (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been driving for 40+ years, I've played a little checkers for 50+ years, and I've been playing bridge for 28 years and I've never done a differential equation calculation for any of those. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WFPM, if you are talking about computers do a random percentage to choose between two equal good moves I think I agree with you. But it doesn't have anything with playing chess. This is just because computers don't have capacity to solve the hole game. In order to make any move, they run a program to choose the best moves and after sometime choose one by random between two or three probabilities. If computers didn't do that they would run forever an application or overload processing capacity with a huge three of probabilities. When we are talking about probality in chess means something like we will do the best move possible and the opponent will do the same. We don't calculate that opponent will do a inferior move because it increase his chances of winning and neither we won't do a bad one (e.g. lose the queen) because we have somehow calculate that we have statistically more chances of win. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And this kind of random choice between equal moves has nothing inherently to do with the game. You could just as well decide between equal moves by some non-random means, such as choosing by which destination (or starting) square is the first by the order of files or ranks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Chess is a competitive game related to a struggle for a dominant position of power You start out even and one side tries to achieve a more powerful position of action than the other. The calculation is always involved with achieving a superior position of power of action. A computer program is required to quantify the relative power status of position of the existing situation before each move, and then to move into another position with a numerically determined power of position value. This involves an evaluation of alternatives and their risk factor as far into the game future as the program is programmed to handle. Since a computer is less neurotic than a human it usually winds with a smaller repertoire than a human. However its ability remember and determine the power of position of a limited number of alternative moves is generally better, so a succesfull position has to be hidden to as far in the future of the game as is possible. There are also move variation calculations that are designed to truncate consideration of alternative moves in the matrix in a certain direction based upon the relative power condition of the two sides. But computer chess involves the moving within a matrix of possible positions, and therefore is more dependent on the basic strategy of the game of chess, whereas human chess is probably less orderly and structured.WFPM (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomad to Captain Kirk (after comparing Mr. Spock's brain scan to Lt. Uhura's): "This unit is different. It is well ordered." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It reminds me about debugging a computer program involved with the generating and utilizing of a "random number" as a process of the program. But when you're checking the program for errors you want it to generate the same random number, so you have to derandomize the program in order for it to do that.WFPM (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What you've written here might superficially seem to show deep insight into chess and computer programming to someone who isn't very experienced in either, but actually it is just more than a little confused compared to the true state of affairs in both. It's wrong on so many points that there really isn't a good place to begin to correct it. (Also, no one talks about "derandomizing" a program for testing. Usually just setting the PRNG seed to a specific value will suffice.) Quale (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a computer programmer and even a very good chess player, But I'm talking about the comparative logic of computer versus human chess playing. And maybe the attractiveness of chess is due to the human factor. And I'm not awed by you're trashing my "derandomizing" description as to the "seed" setting process, because I'm because I'm rather proud of the word because I coined it on the spot. And it does take out the randomness on the random number value. And the chess computer programs have brought out the fact that the positions of chess constitute a matrix of alternative action possibilities that can be analyzed and wherein desirable goals can be achieved, and which has been used to advantages in many varied areas of endeavor. And I'm pretty sure that a computer programmer will have a different viewpoint of the decision processes of chess playing than the "noncomputer" minded person due to his knowledge of the difference.WFPM (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In the computer chess program that I play as Black, I know that white is determined to castle within the first series of opening moves. I would think that that should give me an advantage over him, since I can prepare a defensive strategy under that assumption. I would be interested in knowing truly whether he achieves an advantage by this, but the point is that in a computer mind I don't know how he arrived at such a decision. Therefore there must be some primary instructions or something that causes him to do this.WFPM (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What's a "primary" instruction? (Versus "secondary"? Never heard of that.) And by "a matrix of alternative action possibilities", do you mean variations? If you don't know programming and you're not a very good player, why are you attempting to hypothesize and compare? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your computer opponent castles either because 1) it is following a book line stored in its openings library, or 2) its algorithm places a certain value on castling (getting the king out of the middle of the board), and that value trumps the values it figures it can get from any other moves in that position. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay! But it would have to look a long way into the future to be sure mathematically that that would be a superior strategy move. So it is probably be a book line, except that it takes a long time for it to begin to move as you raise the level of play. So we really don't have a Human versus a truly computerized chess program, but rather a human versus a computer assisted program. I've read that there are usually 30 alternatives related to each move (in the beginning) and then about 30 alternative responses to each previous move. So it doesn't take long to create a large number of alternative positions to evaluate, and the Spracklens made much ado about the creation of program truncation systems in order for the computer's view horizon to keep up with that of the experienced player. And since the computer gets smarter and faster as the number of pieces is reduced, The best chance of success is to get it confused early in the game. And I like the idea of trying to survive to the end game with my strategy versus it's strategy and to see which has the best chance of success. And that doesn't involve castling.WFPM (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A program is never "sure" it just plays the best it can see. How old is the program you're playing? Chess Assistant Light 7 (Convekta Ltd. 2004) kicks my ass regularly, and it castles, with impunity. In past, computers were weakest in the endgame, best in complex, open middlegames. Don't know they have any weaknesses anymore. But I still think it can't see long-term strategic plans. My program is so good at controlling key squares, though, I sometimes think it doesn't need the vision thing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The game is called "Chess Titans" on my Dell Computer. And I can't see why it would be weakest in the end game because there are not as many variable possibilities there. And if I get into a stalemate situation and stall around, it will occasionally make risky moves as an umpteen effort to break a deadlock. And like I say, The higher the complexity the longer the time to move for even a 2 move variable possibility. Is there a book on move strategies for someone playing black who doesn't castle? The game usually progresses with White's attack on it's Queen side, probably assuming that I have castled, and if I can defeat that, then it will try its king side. But I can usually shift my major pieces either way and sometimes outpower it after it destroys the pawn structure on its King side. And I have my doubts about the advisability of its backing up its forward knight positions with its pawns, because then it occasionally allows me to take its knight and double up its pawns, which I think is a bad strategy. And when I win its usually because I maintain the strongest pawn structure and then get to Queen a pawn, which I think is probably the right basic strategy for playing the game.WFPM (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Internet chess servers up for deletion

List of Internet chess servers JunoBeach (talk) JunoBeach (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Another Correction

The section on "check" begins, "When a king is under immediate attack by one or _two_ of the opponent's pieces, it is said to be in check."

The rules do not limit number of pieces which may threaten the king at one time. A more accurate statement would be, "When a king is under immediate attack by one or _more_ of the opponent's pieces, it is said to be in check."

Would have corrected this myself, but the article appears to have been hacked, and is currently inaccessible to editing.

As a consequence of the laws of chess (specifically the rules on check and the way that the pieces move) there aren't any legal chess positions that have the king attacked by more than two pieces simultaneously. That said, we could consider rewording the sentence a bit. Quale (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Most accurate would be to say "When a king is under immediate attack by any of the opponent's pieces, it is said to be in check." The remainder about two pieces max. is an incidental fact that arguably belongs more on the "check (chess)" article page, where it presently says "A check is the result of a move that places the opposing king under an immediate threat of capture by one (or sometimes two) of the player's pieces. (In some chess variants, check by more than two pieces is possible.)" Its parenthesis there could be removed and the second sentence extended to say "As a consequence of the laws of chess no legal position can arise in which a king is checked by more than two pieces simultaneously, although in some chess variants a check by more than two pieces is possible." Pete Hobbs (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right about that. Check by more than one piece is not really part of the rules - it is an incidental consequence. I agree with taking out that part, as you say. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Another alternative is to move the parenthetical out of the body text to an unparenthetical footnote (i.e. [Note]). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I would simplify:

As a consequence of the laws of chess no legal position can arise in which a king is checked by more than two pieces simultaneously, although in some chess variants a check by more than two pieces is possible.

to:

It follows from the rules of chess that a king can never be checked by more than two pieces at once, although in some chess variants [...]

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's OK too. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as Pete Hobbs and Bubba73 suggest this detail can go in check (chess), but this article should omit it as not being part of the rules. Quale (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Added link to "irregular chess openings"

I came across Irregular_chess_opening which wasn't cited here so have added it to See Also - other lists. It's a stub which is in fact a list; the name seems awkward, so in addition I'm proposing a name change over there. One is one and one is one (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Unjustified to add to 'See also'. There are many chess-related articles, "coming across one that isn't cited" isn't reason to include it. (List of chess openings, which isn't even in the 'See also' list, would certainly come before the irregulars.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't needed. There are over 2000 chess articles - that one is of no particular interest to the general chess article. Bubba73

^{You talkin' to me?} 05:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Conceded. I now see See also Index_of_chess_articles, a very reasonable chain. One is one and one is one (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Players

I have just noticed that both the infobox and lead describe chess as a two-player game. But this is not accurate, as team games can be played (and have been). I'm not sure how to adequately modify this, though. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That still seems like two players to me, even if a group of people decides on the move. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

'His' vs 'His or her'

Hi all, I was reading the article and found the use of 'his' to refer to players quite odd, so I edited the article to replace these instances with 'his or her' (this has been reverted but it should still be in the history). I was wondering if there is some sort of general consensus for the use of 'his' versus 'his or her' in articles? Thanks for your input. The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Platypus. I'm not aware of any consensus on the matter. I recently made my own edit to a different page which nobody has bothered me about. The context of that edit was that there was a "Man versus Computer Chess Challenge," and the participants were all males but I changed from "man" to "human" because I felt that was more politically correct.

WP:WikiProject_Chess has a section on capitalization conventions. If there were consensus about the "his or her" thing I would expect it to be reflected on that page. I hope this helps.

Mattj2 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how capitalization is involved at all here. (I think not.) And the "Man versus Computer" article, as you mentioned, was a specific, special context. (So, I don't think that is what Platypus is issuing here.)

The gender "his" versus alternatives regarding chess-related articles has been discussed somewhat extensively at WT:CHESS and Antichess. (Platypus, I asked if you had visited those discussions, but you didn't say.) The issue of gender-neutral has some MOS guidelines, and there is a gender-neutral project board as well. (There is discussion there as well, re chess-related articles.) Nevertheless, the fact this issue continues to keep coming up, I think, makes a very interesting issue, since, it may be festering as "unresolved", it may not be, I really do not know. (I can explain what I mean more fully ... is anyone interested?) Meanwhile, as an interesting and maybe "model" and informative case, try to make the following sentence gender-neutral ... it is a simple sentence taken from article Grünfeld Defence:

White can develop his pieces in a number of ways in the Exchange Variation.

(Would you change it to "White can develop his or her pieces ..."? Personally I think that is atrocious writing style, it worsens the sentence re its message by injecting distracting and unnecessary sex differentiation language. (In chess literature, even beginner books, "he" means either sex. Some authors consistently use "she" to mean either sex, that is fine too, but rarer.)

IMO, the big, big question is, are Wiki chess-realted articles best reflecting how the standard literature (including beginners books) practice? Or a special Engish Wiki-adopted practice, different from the sources? (That question, has never really been addressed per se, and should be discussed at WT:CHESS IMO, to make a consistent conclusion, recommendation and practice. [The reason I don't like "his and her" is not only because it disjoints the sentence by interjecting chromosome considerations when chess concepts are attempting to be described and explained [which are hard enough to do without additional and unnecessary/distracting words], but because it is inconsistent with the vast literature of books, magazines, websites, and speech about chess in the real world [but not the Wiki necessarily]. But it may be fully accepetable IMO, if WP decides a different course from the literature, explicitly gender-neutral throughout, even though that is what would seem "odd" to chessplayers [rather than the reverse, stated by Platypus], vis-a-vis the literature, including as mentioned, beginners books.)

To repeat ad nauseum, I don't think the issue of whether WP wants to diverge from accepted practice in the literature (use of "he" to denote both sexes and even computers, preferrably referred to as/by "it") by introducing blind gender-neutralization, has been discussed, weighed, and decided yet. (There are those assumptions floating in this and earlier discussions, but they are assumptions prefacing decisions, and we shouldn't do that, it produces this kind of contention/confusion. It is possible out of a full discussion with that assumption on table, that MOS should be updated to reflect that use of "he" in games articles represents both sexes without offense or exclusion as a general literature convention in real world, so this contention can be put to bed. If not, then this discussion/argument to make everything gender neutral in games-related articles (chess especially) will continue to fester as it has here and at Antichess. p.s. If gender neutrality is decided upon in spite of literature conventions outside Wiki, then my own preference is to use "they" and "their", instead of "he and she" and "his and hers". (It is less jarring, less sex-chromosome-distracting from the article content attempting to be described/explained.) p.p.s. Sometimes, there are easy ways to circumvent gender-specific, that are consistent with the current MOS guideline to do so if can be done "with precision", however those cases are best identified case-by-case (blanket change is bad; most of the efforts to gender-neutralize I have seen on Wiki are blanket changes, irrespective of article quality, and with disregard/dismissal of the subject literature, stemming from the conclusion from an assumption previously described [that Wiki can/should be different from the practice in the subject literature). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Meh, I'm just revealing my ignorance. Ok, so it's been discussed at WT:CHESS and Antichess. In the course of following links I found WT:Gender-neutral language. Just for the sake of repeating it again, the quote from WP:MOS is "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." (And actually in my example, where the chess players were all men, the MOS explicitly says that it's fine to use a gendered pronoun.) Platypus, if this is an important issue for you I suggest you raise it at WT:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games, which is the parent of this project. I won't contest User:Ihardlythinkso's point that most of the chess literature uses "his." So you might as well try to get consensus somewhere where the literature isn't so male-dominated. If there were a general policy/guideline on the "Board and Table Games" project that articles shouldn't say "A player moves his pieces," we could have a very different kind of discussion here on this project. Mattj2 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I do think the discussion belongs at Proj Board & table games, as using "his" to refer to a generic player is a games thing, not just a chess thing. (The reason "especially chess" is just because there are so many chess-related articles, more than any other boardgame, and, the amount of literature/books re chess is way more than other games.)

Just for the heck of it I pulled a random games book off my bookshelf and turned to a random page ... The book was Starting Out in Checkers by Richard Pask, published by Everyman Publishers, London (2001). The page was p. 64. It's an anlysis of "Key Endgame 2" on p. 63, with no "he" or "he and she"s. But on the very next page, p. 65, which begins to analyse "Key Endgame 3", there is one only text paragraph, which says: "In order for Black to draw, it is vital that he can freely occupy squares 9 and 13 as required. His defence then consists of a perpetual see-saw movement between these two squares." (So, the gender thing is a games thing, not a chess thing. And the real literature has no problem with "he".

I don't think the MOS can be interpreted literally for areas it couldn't or didn't anticipate (specifically, games contexts). Nevertheless as mentioned I think discussion is needed to either exempt games contexts from blanket application of gender-neutral efforts as was attempted here at Chess, or it should be decided that Wikipedia wants to go its own way re gender-neutral in games contexts/articles, inconsistent with real world games literature. Again, agreed, that discussion belongs at Board & Table games, not here, not at Antichess. If the discussion is at Proj Board & Table Games, then discussion focus would be on what is best for articles and how this relates to MOS or changes to MOS. I think a presupposition at Gender Neutral discussion board that games articles should not be any different from other articles exists, and the focus there is on gender-neutral language, with games contexts and games articles (quality of) a secondary (or even non-existent) consideration. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback. The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• "They" is plural and here correctly means both players together. Using it also as singular makes ambiguity and is confusing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  I agree those are drawbacks. (I just think other alternatives are even worse.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Chess being from India be mentioned earlier?

The first sentence of a Wikipedia article should be like "Chess is a game originating from India (or something like that). Why is it all the way at the bottom? Who decides these thigns? How come some articles mention thigns like this earlier and some don't? 108.13.86.182 (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The introduction of the article is a summary (see WP:LEAD). Discussing the origins of chess in the introduction of this article is a bit of a problem, since it is disputed (the Indian theory being one possibility). However, it is mentioned in the lead of the article History of chess. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Reruns are so boring: Talk:Chess/Archive_5#Question_here, Talk:Chess/Archive_6#Why is the Indian version part after the European_part?, and Talk:Chess/Archive_7#why is this article back to mentioning euarope brefore India?. The next time this is trolled the list will reach five. Quale (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm new

Hello, I'm new to wikipedia, still learning the basics. I like this article about chess, not sure how could I contribute. I appreciate any advice, thank you. ~~GreyWinterOwl~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyWinterOwl (talk • contribs) 09:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. It's not clear if you are just new to Wikipedia editing or to chess as well. If you have a good knowledge of chess and some time to spare to contribute to chess articles, I would say probably avoid this main article Chess, which has been quite finely tuned over the years. Changes here often spark quite fierce debates, so it would not be a good training ground! A good place to visit however, is WP:CHESS where you can add your name to the participants of 'Wikiproject Chess'. You will see there are many suggestions for improving chess articles on that page and if you have any questions or seek a communal view on something, that can be achieved on the associated talk page (see the 'Talk' tab at the top of the Project page). Then just choose a topic area you are interested in and share your specialist knowledge and/or encyclopedic facts, wherever you feel an article can be improved, always including good quality references to support your edits. Above all else, enjoy the experience! Brittle heaven (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

How to get the whole chess articles easily

Hello, I'm new to wikipedia, still learning the basics.So, I want to get all the chess articles in the english wikipedia. This for the localization purpose as offline. Is there any link or method to get the whole articles as single or multiple pdf files. --Arjunkmohan (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

On the left menu of every article is a book creator option that allows user created books, see Help:Books for assistance. The books can be downloaded as a pdf. An almost complete list of around 4000 chess articles can be found at Index of chess articles. Books normally contain about 100 articles so it's conceivable that some limit could be reached if you actually want ALL chess articles in one book. The organization in Outline of chess could be a useful for selecting articles. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 10:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please add info on the history of chess

I would like to know who invented chess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.214.62 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you overlook the Chess#History section? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Change "correspondance" link to "by correspondance"

Hello, I think that the "correspondence" link at the top of the page should include the word "by" so that people don't think the link is to "correspondence", but to the Chess by correspondence page. I am unable to do this myself since I'm on a public computer and don't want to enter my password. --69.157.240.246 (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"Chess" as "Chess variant"

I see that "Shogi" (Japanese Chess) is in the category "Chess variants," but "Chess," which refers to Western (or Mad Queen) Chess that was developed in Italy during the Renaissance, is not. I argue that this is western-centric, because Western (or Mad Queen) Chess most certainly was not the original variant of chess, and adding Japanese Chess, which is not at all based on Western (or Mad Queen) Chess, to the category "Chess variants" while not doing the same for Western (or Mad Queen) Chess, makes it seems like Western (or Mad Queen) Chess is the default, proper, or even misleadingly, the "original" Chess. I argue that "Chess" should also be added to the category "Chess variants," the same as "Shogi," as like Japanese Chess, Western (or Mad Queen) Chess is not the original variant of Chess (which arose either in India or China).

If there are no objections, then I will make the addition. --Beneficii (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Chess shouldn't be listed as a variant, since "variant" implies a divergence from a standard, and the standard is in this case orthodox FIDE chess. Personally, I would keep games historically related to chess separate from chess variants. Shogi is no more a variant of FIDE chess than FIDE chess is a variant of shogi. — Gwalla | Talk 21:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Be careful reading in your own definitions what "variant" means. All the regional and national chesses have entries in Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, and each of them also has an entry for "orthochess" (FIDE chess). Gollon's Chess Variations has chapters for the major regional and national chesses. Also see noted French chess historian Jean-Louis Cazaux's site [1]. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From The Oxford Companion to Chess (1987):

Variants of chess, see unorthodox chess.

Unorthdox chess, versions of the game that do not conform to the Laws of Chess. Forms such as chaturanga, chatrang, shatranj, and medieval chess were normal in their time and some like chinese chess and shogi are still normal in their regions.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It does seem rather western-centric to refer to Shogi and Xiangqi, highly complex games in their own right with organised competition and a very different character to western chess, as "chess variants". MaxBrowne (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Automatic players' ratings update

I have an idea concerning chess articles in general; since it is somehow time-consuming to update FIDE rankings manually, maybe it would be possible to write some kind of program which would automatically update them directly from FIDE website? If bots can eliminate vandalisms with such stunning efficacy, this can certainly be done. With so many articles on chessmasters, it is and will be simply impossible to keep Wikipedia up to date if nothing is changed. If that is not the best place to propose such an idea, tell me where I should've done it Philodemos (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a very good idea, and there is a system in place for automatic updates of the ratings in the infobox that covers players rated 2400 and above. I think it is a clever design, as it doesn't actually update every chess bio page. See WT:WikiProject Chess/Archive 21#Automatic updated FIDE rating in infobox (by bot) for details. If you want to discuss this or other issues that pertain to many chess articles, consider posting to WT:CHESS, which is the Chess WikiProject talk page. That page is watched by quite a few chess editors and you may be more likely to get a response. Quale (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Philodemos and Quale: In my opinion, Wikidata would be better for this task. Bot updating on Wikidata is much easier than here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

List of chess-related deaths

FYI - an intriguing minor article related to chess (List of chess-related deaths) may be deleted: check out the voting if you're interested: [[2]]. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It has been deleted. It was rather odd at the best of times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ha-kutim (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

I request you to please add the following entry in the Bibliography section for Chess:-

• Murali, AV (2011). Chess Variants & Games for Intellectual Development and Amusement. Mumbai: Leadstart Publishing Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 978-93-8111-574-9. OCLC 795448471.

immediately after the following entry for Pritchard's encyclopedia of chess variants:

• Pritchard, David (1994). The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. Godalming: Games & Puzzles Publications. ISBN 0-9524142-0-1. OCLC 60113912.

This book has been published in the year 2011 and has many new variants of chess whoich are not found in David Pritchard's book. Moreover it takes a much broader approach to chess by describing new ideas covering chess inspired games, application of chess in education, chess as a team sport and as an outdoor sport. In my humble opinion, this will be a useful reference to chess and chess variant enthusiasts.

More information ca be found at the following amazon.com listing:-http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Variants-Games-V-Murali/dp/9381115745

Dhirand (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)dhiraj

Not done for now: would like to see some rationale for why this book is important versus the numerous other books about chess that are out there, e.g. if the author is some sort of notable chess authority or if the book is held in high regard in the chess community. Otherwise we are simply promoting this book for no reason Cannolis (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Some suggestions for the article on chess

I have the following suggestions in various sections of this article. Kindly check whether they can be incorporated:-

In the introductory section:

1. "Chess is a two-player strategy board game played on a chessboard" -- here there is no mention of "competitive" nature of the game contrasting it with some "cooperative" games. It is mentioned only towards the end of the article.

2. "It is one of the world's most popular games, played by millions of people worldwide in homes, parks, clubs, online, by correspondence, and in tournaments" -- it may be worth adding "schools" to this list. "tournaments" seems to be unrelated to other entries and so may have to be re-phrased.

3. "Pieces are used to attack and capture the opponent's pieces, with the objective to 'checkmate' the opponent's king"

-- "Pieces are moved.." seems more appropriate than "Pieces are used..".

-- Here, there is no mention of supporting one's own pieces.

-- "objective to checkmate" sounds informal; may have to be modified to "objective of checkmating".

In Movement section:

1. "a null move is not allowed" has not been mentioned anywhere.

2. "Each chess piece has its own style of moving " or movement ?

3. "The king moves one square in any direction" - we can be more precise by saying "...in any of the eight directions" or any of the 4 orthogonal and 4 diagonal directions.

In End of the game section:

1. "It is considered bad etiquette to continue playing when in a truly hopeless position" - this statement seems vague and unnecessary, although generally understood. Nobody will continue to play unless he feels there is a chance of opponent making a blunder.

In Time Control Section:

1. the game is automatically lost (provided his opponent has enough pieces left to deliver checkmate). Can't we mention what we mean by "enough pieces" ?. Also "his" could be replaced by "his/her" in this section as well as following sections:- Check, Endgame

Strategy and Tactics :-

1. Can we add the role of intuition either here or under "Psychology" section? Dhirand (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Dhiraj

@Dhirand: Thanks for your suggestions. I have incorporated one of the suggestions: namely the impossibility of a "null" move. Others can be discussed and added. You have some good suggestions: remember to be WP:BOLD while editing on Wikipedia. Also read WP:BRD. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have incorporated a few more of your suggestions, while rejecting some of them. Keep in mind that there is a separate Rules of Chess article, where things are described in more detail. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2014

Pertaining to the rules for CASTLING: it is also necessary that no intervening square is being attacked by any of the opponent's pieces. Thomasmjohnsonjr (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have implemented a similar change, and added that a king that is in check may not castle either. I have also changed the reference to FIDE's Laws of Chess since this is the official source for the rules. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2014

• Chess site – Chess site for all fans

Vaghik (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: That kind of link is prohibited by WP:NOT. Sorry. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Link to wrong article in intro

"the game can be won by voluntary resignation" in intro links to Resign article which is about resignation from positions, should link to Glossary of chess#Resign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.123.122.200 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Remi

The word "remi" is used twice in the article, but not defined. A definition would be helpful. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a foreign term (French) for "draw" (remis), and therefore probably s/n be used in the article (unless there's case for a table, ala chess piece names in diff langs, etc.). But the diag/caption it's used in is a poor/redundant content add (& s/ probably be reverted). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Castling

The gif image explaining how to castle depicts an illegal castling. The White King can castle, but the Black King would be passing through check.

The black line splitting the board in half indicates that they are two completely separate positions.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Damage to article

There have been some very bad edits to this article since this version from October, and it is now a total mess. I propose restoring this version of the article, then reincorporating any subsequent "good" edits back into the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The changes have mostly made the article worse, so if you're willing to try to fix it, I support you. Quale (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

OK I did some work on it. Anyone whose edits I have undone should feel free to add them back if they think it will improve the article. Just please, no more major re-writes of the rules. Don't fix something that's not broken. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Stability is important here. There should be no need to make major changes to a Featured Article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The rules rewrites are the worst. I don't know why people feel the need to constantly mess with the explanation of the rules. I'm not sure that all of the meddlers even know how to play chess. Quale (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find an old version which explained the different ways games are drawn, oddly enough. I made quite a detailed edit explaining this. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who rewrote the rules to fully explain what all the rules of chess are. It helps improve Wikipedia people being bold and guessing which edits to make and having the bad ones get undone by other people and the good ones not. If everybody is so afraid of making a bad edit, those edits somebody thinks of that aren't obvious that they improve Wikipedia but turn out to improve it won't get made. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Blackbombchu, with all due respect Quale and MaxBrowne are highly experienced editors. I've checked the edits and they both have a point. We appreciate you being bold but particularly with something like the rules of chess, changes should be rare. Jkmaskell (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Popularity of Chess

I recommend that we change "It is one of the world's most popular games[citation needed]" to "It is arguably the world's most popular game" and then cite https://www.fide.com/fide/fide-world-chess-federation.html. The problem with current wording is that it is not backed by any citation.Vijay.singularity.krish (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Chess: A western game?

Down in history, it is mentioned that chess originated in ancient India. If this is the case, then why does the italic text mention that the game is "western"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8801:969D:C081:CF31:B9A2:12D6 (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the article is about the western evolution of the Indian game Chaturanga. Not saying that's right or wrong, that's just the apparent reasoning. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Random Chance

The page says there is no random chance in chess. I am not sure that is true. There is at least some random chance in determining who is White, and statistics show that white has a better chance of winning than black. If nothing else, white gets to eliminate a number of possible openings available.

Determining who plays White isn't part of the actual game - the game begins after that has been determined. It is also not necessarily determined by chance. 217.137.225.227 (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2015

Please change CE to AD. :) 97.81.72.84 (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Per WP:ERA, both styles (AD and CE) are acceptable; the choice of the original writer should not be changed without consensus, based on mere personal preference. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links

I'd like to suggest adding the link http://ocastudios.com/classics/chess. It is a public domain (thus free) print and play chess set. Some other board game articles have links to the site, which I think can be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isacvale (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This site does not appear to be a good source for further information, so I do not think we should link to it.--Nø (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2015

159.203.26.155 (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 12:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"sport"

No problem with noting that the IOC recognises FIDE as chess's governing body, but to go from there to defining chess as a "sport" in the opening sentence is too much of a leap in my opinion. For casual players it's no more of a sport than monopoly or trivial pursuit. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not only the IOC, but also the Consejo Superior de Deportes (CSD), the Spanish Government organisation for regulating the development of sport in Spain, recognizes chess as a sports activity. Some board games can be considered sports (chess or bridge are examples). Chess is considered both a board game and a sport, so it's not a contradiction. Again, Wikipedia must be NEUTRAL. I don't see why do you think the IOC and the CSD are not enough. Even the Spanish Wikipedia article for "chess", considers it to be a sport.

Yes, some people argue that chess is not a sport. So? Many people claim that psyquiatry is not a science or that evolution is not a fact. But they are not experts. The IOC and the CSD are sufficiently competent. Please take under consideration that Wikipedia must be neutral, not be based on subjective opinion.

Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

"When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance."

I am extremely sure that we should write the opening sentence in a more neutral way. James343e (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not chess is a sport is far from a settled question, and in fact there is no definitive answer since it depends on how you define "sport". Some countries' national sporting bodies may recognise it, but this is probably more for the purpose of receiving government funding than actual recognition that it is a sport in the traditional sense. Mark Weeks sits on the fence on this question. Chess can be played over the internet, is clicking a mouse a "sport"? In that case WoW is a sport too. What about chess compositions, are they "sport"? If not, are they "chess"? It is not a settled question, therefore it is not neutral to assert as a fact, in the opening sentence, that chess is a "sport". MaxBrowne (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You can play football clicking a mouse, if you are playing Pro Evolution Soccer for the PC. PES even have an Online Tournament option for the PC version. Anybody has said that neither online chess, nor online football are considered sports modalities. Also, WoW is not recognised by any sports federation. James343e (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(Please indent). You're avoiding the main point. Not everyone agrees that chess should be described as a "sport". It is a matter for debate/controversy. Google "chess is not a sport" and you'll get plenty of hits. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, therefore wikipedia cannot assert as a fact that chess is a sport. We can say some organization or other *recognizes* chess as a sport, but that's all. This is what was in the article before, and it was better. I am going to restore it. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But this is like to say "evolution is a matter of controverse. Google "evolution is false" and you'll get plenty of hits. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, therefore Wikipedia cannot assert as a fact that evolution is true." Do you see? It's the same. People are not always expert. The IOC and CSD are sufficiently competent, as well as the scientific community is sufficiently competent. Whether people like it or not, chess is a sport, and whether people like it or not, evolution is true. James343e (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MaxBrowne on this. Opinions are still divided on the 'chess is a sport' argument and it is not the remit of Wikipedia to take a firm stance on one side or the other. Even the mainstream media seems split, with some newspapers including chess within their sports section and others, not. Calling it a 'mind sport' would be less equivocal, as it neither confers or denies full sporting status. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Support "mind sport".--Nø (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, I happen to think that the issue of chess is similar to the one with evolution. People are not always expert on a particular topic. I see the IOC and the CSD sufficiently competent, as well as the scientific community sufficiently competent too. The point is that whether people like it or not, chess is a sport, and whether people like it or not, evolution is true. What do you think? James343e (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

With regard to James343e's explanation: Wikipedia doesn't choose sides over 'creationism versus evolutionary theories' - it has articles on both. That is the point that is being made. Where there are competing belief systems, Wikipedia does not assume the role of arbiter. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we cannot make two different articles for chess. James343e (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a false analogy anyway. Evolution is a matter of science. Whether or not chess is a "sport" depends on your definition of "sport" and is subjective. It is not a matter of scientific fact. It's also true that in many countries, chess (unlike, say, archery) gets no government support because the government does not classify it as a "sport". This is the case in UK, for example. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion, as well as evolution is not a matter of opinion. Chess is a sport recognized by the International Olympic Committee. It's a fact. However, I included in the opening sentence the expression "board game OR sport" to be more neutral. James343e (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

James, arguments on this go back years, I can remember debates on it when I was a student chess club organiser in the late 1960's! Administratively it makes sense because the team can travel as a group with other unequivocally sporting teams. In many other ways it's a nightmare, chess results don't benefit from bucolic socialising the night before the game. Sources differ. JRPG (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As the article I linked to clearly demonstrates, it most definitely is a matter of opinion. The IOC is not the authority on chess, and does not get to decide what is or isn't a "sport". Besides, the "sporting" aspect, i.e. over the board competition, is only one of many aspects to chess. There is also the "fun" aspect (e.g. casual games at home between people who don't really know what they're doing), the artistic aspect (e.g. composed problems), the theoretical aspect (e.g. debate about the assessment of various opening lines), the "video game" aspect (e.g. bullet games on the internet), the literary aspect, the computing aspect (engines and tablebases) - chess encompasses all this and more. To call it a sport is to limit it. Defining it as a "sport" in the opening sentence, when many (including chess players) disagree with this characterization, is clear-cut POV pushing. (By the way I don't favour the description "mind sport" in the opening sentence either - this is a jargon term.) MaxBrowne (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the edit summary, "chess is a board game" is a perfectly neutral introductory statement - there is no disagreement that chess is indeed a board game. To include the statement "chess is a sport" in any form in the opening sentence is clearly not neutral, for reasons I have clearly explained. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

MaxBrowne writes: 'To include the statement "chess is a sport" in any form in the opening sentence is clearly not neutral'. I stil think writing "chess is a mind sport" is perfectly neutral and should be uncontroversial.--Nø (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"Mind sport" is a fairly recent jargon term, unfamiliar to most readers. It is not even used much by chess players - I don't remember hearing it at all before the 90s with the "Mind Sport Olympiad" thing. If the term is to be mentioned in the article at all, it should not be given undue prominence. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Max is right, and the article lede was better the way he left it. If you keep edit warring over this I'm going to ask an admin to step in and there may be some blocks. Cut it out, now. Get consensus before changing the lede. This is a long-standing, heavily edited article and your changes are not improvements. Quale (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know "mind sport" was so new in English; the equivalent Danish "tankesport" goes back to 1985. Anyway, it's a fairly self explanatory term, and if wikilinked it doesn't matter if it's not generally known. And even if it were neither well known nor self explanatory, it would still be OK to use it. Take the first few words of our article on swans: "Swans are birds of the family Anatidae ..." Who knows what Anatidae are? I don't, but the answer is just one click away.--Nø (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well I know what anatidae is... ducks, geese and swans... but I'm interested in ornithology (done a little editing there), and I guess most people don't know this word. Is "tankesport" actually a familiar mainstream word in Danish? Could you use it with someone you just met in a pub and expect to be immediately understood? Don't think I could casually drop the term "mind sport" in New Zealand. It's just not widely understood. Most people here have never heard of go or shogi or xiangqi. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have known the Danish term "tankesport" since late 1980'es when I played Go in Copenhagen Go Club. Some members (not I) did "tankesports-triatlon", playing Chess and Bridge as well. I think most Danes would not recall ever having heard the term "tankesport", but then I think most would be able to figure out approximately what it means. (Tanke=thought; sport=... well, you know!) I think the term circumvents the classification of Chess as belonging to either "Sport" or "Everything that is not sport" in a sensible way: It's sports-like, but not football.--Nø (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

MaxBrowne: No, it's not a matter of opinion, as well as evolution is not a matter of opinion. The IOC is competent, as well as the scientific communitiy is competent enough. Plus to simply say that chess is a board game is NOT neutral, because not everybody considers that chess is not a sport. For example, the Wikipedia article for sociology starts with the following opening sentence: "sociology is the scientific OR academic study...". In other words, Wikipedia doesn't take a position on the demarcation of sociology as a scientific or non-scientific discipline. The same happens with this opening sentence: "chess is a board game OR sport". It doesn't take a position on the demarcation of chess as a sport or non-sport. James343e (talk) 1:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. It appears that the issue is whether chess can be referred to as a sport. I count at least five editors in this discussion. I am removing the request for a third opinion. I suggest that a Request for Comments be used to obtain the consensus of the community. Alternatively, a request can be made for moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but this dispute appears to be more suited for an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, the third opinion is not a bad idea, Robert McClenon. I think the issue is whether we can include the following opening sentence :"chess is a board game OR sport". Here are my arguments:

The issue of whether chess is or not a sport is not a matter of opinion, as well as evolution is not a matter of opinion. The IOC is competent, as well as the scientific communitiy is competent enough. To simply say that chess is a board game is NOT neutral, because not everybody considers that chess is not a sport. For example, the Wikipedia article for sociology starts with the following opening sentence: "sociology is the scientific OR academic study...". In other words, Wikipedia doesn't take a position on the demarcation of sociology as a scientific or non-scientific discipline. The same happens with this opening sentence: "chess is a board game OR sport". It doesn't take a position on the demarcation of chess as a sport or non-sport. James343e (talk) 1:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You were warned about edit warring. This has now been escalated. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@James, your argument is weak. Find another trusted encyclopedia or dictionary that defines chess as a sport in the very first sentence. That's undue weight, confusing, and stupid. Everyone recognizes chess as a board game, and that belongs in the first sentence. Chess as a sport is mentioned in the appropriate place in the lede. Dealing with this kind of nonsense is what makes editing Wikipedia a chore. Quale (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We need an RFC to determine whether "chess is a board game" should remain as the first sentence? Unbelievable. We already say that chess is recognized as a sport. It does NOT need to be in the very first sentence.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Quale: "Dealing with this kind of nonsense is what makes editing Wikipedia a chore" Dealing with your arrogance is what makes Wikipedia talk page disrespectful for other users. Even though you convinced me with your arguments (I can't find any encyclopedia indicating that chess is a sport), your disrespectful comments weren't necessary. Before my edits, anybody had indicated that the Spanish Consejo Superior de Deportes also recognizes chess as a sport, so not all my changes were unhelpful. Pawnkingthree: "We need an RFC to determine whether "chess is a board game" should remain as the first sentence? Unbelievable." No. It's not unbelievable. The IOC rognizes chess as a sport. Plus, I didn't have the idea of requesting a third opinion. It was initially purposed by another user. In any case, I happen to agree with Quale arguments, so I will not continue editing the lead sentence. James343e (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Where chess is played

Chess is played by millions of people worldwide in homes, urban parks, clubs, online, correspondence, and in tournaments

Aside from the ungrammatical wording, this strikes me as a rather arbitrary and tedious list. It would be possible to mention coffee shops, libraries, non-urban parks, schools and so on and not leave anyone much better informed. Personally, I'd like to replace this with something mentioning that it is played in competitive tournaments as well as casually. Has anyone any objections? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Chess player nominated for deletion / redirect

You may want to participate in this deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess player. IQ125 (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"This article is about the board game"

@Zafar24: I don't agree with your edit changing "This article is about the Western board game" to "This article is about the board game". The article Chess (disambiguation) mentions several board games, including chaturanga and Eastern board games such as xiangqi (Chinese chess) and makruk (Thai chess). The chess game discussed in the Chess article was developed in Spain based on the Persian game shatranj, so it's accurate to call it "the Western board game". Calling it "the board game" doesn't distinguish it from other board games mentioned at Chess (disambiguation). Strawberry4Ever (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Strawberry4Ever: Ok dear, I was wrong. Thanks for correcting me.

Popularity of chess

I've added some stats form a 2012 survey ([3]). Can anyone find other stats, especially something to show how the popularity of chess has been shaping over the years? If you reply here, please WP:ECHO me, thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2016

2601:182:4200:6AA3:4929:DC83:5711:2C1E (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Controversy in religion section

I have removed the whole section. Firstly, the Islam claims: most of the Muslim people in the world don't know anything or care about what the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia says about chess. This is a recent story, sourced to newspapers, which does not say anything about chess in Islam in a historical perspective. I have also removed the chess.com source which isn't reliable. Find some good sources taking a broader view if you wish to add this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me this material is not about chess (thus belonging in the article), but possibly about a notable recent development that may deserve a small article or mention somewhere, perhaps linked here. As an article on a recent developmen, I guess news articles are more acceptable sources than in an article about a centuries-old game.--Nø (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I wrote pt:Xadrez e religião which (I hope so) have good sources about this topic. If someone have interest in translation or a copy of the original sources, please let me know.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

As I admitted when I included it (and suggested other editors improve on it) Bill Wall isn't a good source, but Wall's article does strongly suggest that religious opposition to chess is an actual topic worthy of documenting in an encyclopedia, whether it's in a section of the main Chess article or in a separate article as the Portuguese wikipedia has done. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Religious views of chess are a topic that should be covered, but the particular bit in question didn't belong in this article (WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE). This article should cover only the things that a person must know to have an informed and well rounded understanding of chess as an academic subject, and the views of a single cleric in 2016 aren't significant enough to warrant such extensive coverage here. Extensive discussion really belongs in history of chess since religious views of chess begin with 1500-year-old Buddhist writing and continue with what Islamic, Judaic and Christian leaders have said since. There are sources, for example Murray wrote about it and so did Eales. If we ever developed more material than comfortably fit in history of chess it could be split into a separate article. We could have a summary of religious views of chess in this main topic article, but there aren't any details from 2016 that belong here. Each of the major religions might get two or three sentences, and it would be sourced to academic studies rather than newspaper articles. Quale (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, pt:História do xadrez#Chegada à Europa have major points about this. Again, I'm willing to help if necessary.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Endgame and opposition

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

I think this position is much better as example. If it's White's turn (and both players are at least decent) then it's a remi. But if's Black's move, then he will loose. Provided the players are aware of the Opposition rule - the pawn must be moved SILENTLY forwards. That is without checking the opponant's king (else move the king correctly) - or you will loose the opposition. Good players can even think of similar positions many moves before. "Will I manage a remi that way ?" followed by a few exchanges of pieces. The Zugzwang example ( = this perticular Zugzwang example) is just a special case of opposition - where even beginners comprahend that the pawn is useless. Opposition is the most useful thing to learn about endgames with few pieces left. I don't quite agree that the article is worth its star. End games are importaint already during the mid game ("not to forget about" at the very least)- and most certainly not at Grand Master level. Boeing720 (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This position is not lost for Black, e.g. 1...Kc4 2.Kd2 Kd4 with a standard draw. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)