![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
To the person who locked the article, I would like added another point in the variant section that would read like this:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
List of Internet chess servers JunoBeach ( talk) JunoBeach ( talk) 15:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
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.
to: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.
Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)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 [...]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
(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.)White can develop his pieces in a number of ways in the Exchange Variation.
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
I would like to know who invented chess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.214.62 ( talk) 23:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 09:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)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.
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request you to please add the following entry in the Bibliography section for Chess:-
immediately after the following entry for Pritchard's encyclopedia of chess variants:
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
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
![]() | This
edit request to
Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vaghik ( talk) 20:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
![]() | This
edit request to
Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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
edit request to
Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
159.203.26.155 ( talk) 07:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
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:
/info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
You may want to participate in this deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess player. IQ125 ( talk) 13:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@ 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.
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2601:182:4200:6AA3:4929:DC83:5711:2C1E ( talk) 23:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
To the person who locked the article, I would like added another point in the variant section that would read like this:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
List of Internet chess servers JunoBeach ( talk) JunoBeach ( talk) 15:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
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.
to: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.
Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)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 [...]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
(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.)White can develop his pieces in a number of ways in the Exchange Variation.
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
I would like to know who invented chess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.214.62 ( talk) 23:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 09:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)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.
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request you to please add the following entry in the Bibliography section for Chess:-
immediately after the following entry for Pritchard's encyclopedia of chess variants:
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
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
![]() | This
edit request to
Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vaghik ( talk) 20:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
![]() | This
edit request to
Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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
edit request to
Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
159.203.26.155 ( talk) 07:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
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:
/info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
You may want to participate in this deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess player. IQ125 ( talk) 13:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@ 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.
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Chess has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2601:182:4200:6AA3:4929:DC83:5711:2C1E ( talk) 23:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)