![]() | This page 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. |
when chess books discuss alternate moves of competition games, did the players really try out all the variations during competition?
when trading is used
OK, thanks. Could someone explain to a casual player what exactly is meant by a "score of 55%" (in terms of win/lose/draw)? -- Slashme 05:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I get it now. Thanks. I have modified the article in a way that I understand. Hope that works for the other novices as well ;-) -- Slashme 13:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
If fifty moves have been played by each player without a piece being taken or a pawn moved (in tournament play, some situations are extended to one hundred moves).
I´m quite confident that this was abandond a few years ago. -- Vulture
Back when I was an active USCF player, there was an addendum to the 50-move rule published by the USCF explicitly laying out one specific set of conditions under which 100 moves would be allowed: it was for certain Knight-vs-Pawn endings, laid out in great detail in the addendum. I still have it in my paper copy of the rulebook. If Vaulture says it was abandoned, and you can't find it in the present rules, I have no doubt that it was in fact abandoned. I was not able to find any information about exactly when that happened, or why. -- Lee Daniel Crocker
Here is my understanding: The original theory behind the fifty-move rule was that pawnless endgames (e.g. KBN vs K) take less than fifty moves to win if you know what you are doing. If you don't know what you are doing, you don't get to prolong the game indefinitely just because you know there is a win there somewhere.
When computers started to do retrograde analysis, they discovered pawnless situations where the distance to mate was greater than fifty moves, and situations involving pawns where the stronger side had a win, but optimal play from both sides went more than fifty moves without a pawn advance. Therefore the rules were changed to give the stronger side a chance to convert those endgames by allowing one hundred moves in some situations.
The rapid proliferation of endgame tablebases uncovered more and more "exceptions" to the fifty-move rule, and even some cases where more than one hundred moves were necessary to convert. (Apparently 243 moves to conversion (262 to mate) is the current record. See [1].) Tournament organizers saw the complexity of the draw rules spinning out of control, and perhaps even requiring a computer to say whether someone was eligible to claim a draw or not. In face of looming rule insanity, the original fifty-move rule was restored. In theoretical cases where there is a win on the board that takes more than fifty moves to convert, it's just too bad for the stronger side.
-- Fritzlein
Is there a particular reason why this is separated from the Chess article? -- Zoe
Maybe it should be "Official Rules of Chess"? – Floorsheim 08:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I thought there was some sort of international convention. Maybe we could reference that. My concern is that the rules listed seem too constrictive. Of the many times I've played chess, for example, I've never played it in such a way that if you touch a piece you have to move it. It seems as though if we don't reference an international convention, we'll have to go into detail about variations on the rules. – Floorsheim 00:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The bracketed list of material sufficient to checkmate in the Timing section seems flawed to me. It is perfectly possible to checkmate with only two Knights against a hasted defence, so it shouldn't be an draw if the defender runs out of time, should it? (And it is of course also possible to checkmate with only one Knight if the defender has a few ill-placed pieces in the King's way...) -- Jao 15:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
In contrast to FIDE, the USCF no longer requires the king to be touched first in castling. Touching the rook first is OK if the player "intends to castle". I can't get them to clarify how you know that a person "intends to castle" if, say, he moves his rook and then reaches for the king, but doesn't touch it and draws his hand away. Is that "intent to castle"? They also won't clarify what happens if the player moves the rook and doesn't immediately move the king. They won't say if he is committed to a rook move, commited to castling, or what. They also don't say what happens if the player moves the rook then the other player moves or starts to move and then the first player says that he was intending to castle. Bubba73 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
-I don't think the "convenient practice" is common enough or useful enough to include.
-"white wins 10% more games" would mean that white wins 110% as many games as black wins. Using the numbers from "chess games explorer" with white starting with e4 or d4, I get white winning 136% as many games as black wins, or better than 4 to 3. Besides, this is "original research", and besides that it probably doesn't belong in an article about rules anyway.
-I don't think we want to suggest that there's consensus about what happens in chess with perfect play. It's really not known and it may well never be.
-I thought it worth explaining castling and en passant in this article. I tried to be brief. Took out some of the tournament-related detail about castling though--I think it's a bit much. Obviously if people disagree they can put it back.
-Added resignation, which was missing.
DanielCristofani 14:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something (and I am new to contributing to Wikipedia), but what was the purpose of 70.172.215.105's change to the Draws section adding the note about Kings giving check to each other? I suppose some variant might make that reasonable, but it seems bogus to me.
JTamplin 01:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it doesn't make sense, I don't know why it was added, and I've just reverted it. DanielCristofani 03:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The actual colors of chess sets are usually white and black, cream and brown, red and black, or buff and green; but the pieces and squares are always referred to as "white" and "black". -- Now I've seen white and red or cream and red, but never black and red. Is this an error, or just me? Also, it is worth mentioning that at one time the two sides could be referred to as White and Red (as they are in Through the Looking-Glass)? 213.249.135.36 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's the fact that it's 5:30am, but the starting position for chess looks incorrect to me. As the old adage states (mentioned in this article), queen on colour and white on right -- of course this does not jive with the layout displayed which clearly has the queens on the opposite colour (as well as the kings). I'm almost positive this is wrong and I'm wondering why it's gone unnoticed... maybe lack of sleep is making me miss something. Professor Ninja 10:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The Rules of chess were redesignated the Laws of chess quite some time ago. May I have views, please, on retitling the article accordingly. BlueValour 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual. This is essentially all this article is.-- Crossmr 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it might have been viewed as that when you listed it for deletion, but it isn't anymore.... 193.128.87.36 09:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The article says "To describe moves and locations on the board, either algebraic chess notation or the almost obsolete descriptive chess notation is used." In my mind, DN is obsolete, and almost extinct. should that be changed? Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Do the "advanced rules" and "controversy" sections still need to be here? I think they are a direct copy from fifty move rule, and that article is linked in the main body (under "Draws") and also in the list of articles about specific rules near the end. Bubba73 (talk), 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I recently tried to shrink the table of six diagrams illustrating piece movements. My desire was to allow more space on the left side of the page for the text to wrap through--the gap was quite narrow. While I was able to shorten the captions without losing much, the table still has a lot of dead space. It appears that the diagram template itself inserts a good deal of space around itself although reading its code I cannot demonstrate that to myself. Neither can I make alignment changes which allows for more horizontal space (although I did vertically top-justify the diagrams, which looks better).
Now I like the idea of having the six illustrations all together. But its impact on the text flow is something I am not satisfied with. I am not a table markup or html formatting guru and would like to ask for some feedback as to whether there is an easy way to lay out the diagrams in a lot less horizontal space. We could even revisit putting all six in one table, although to me that seems like a Plan B.
Oh, and feel free to revert my table edit; the only tangible improvement was the vertical justification which can easily be specifically readded. Thanks, Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the recent edit and revert about moving the king and then touching the the rook - the revert (edit comment "Touching a rook AFTER making the king part of a castling is immaterial, as the corresponding rook move MUST be made anyway") is correct. FIDE rule 4.6 and USCF rule 9C state that after the king has been released on a square two squares over, the player is committed to castling that way, if it is legal. Bubba73 (talk), 00:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
A heads up: I tried to improve the wording of the goal in the intro. By using the word "inevitable" I hoped to avoid the necessity of explaining that the king doesn't actually get captured (I moved that into the body). I also trimmed out reference to protecting one's own king from this; I felt the symmetry of the game made this idea clear enough so that the intro would read better if omitted. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 19:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In the Setup section, there is a short paragraph on the usage of the term "piece", as well as "(chess)man". No qualms with the content (although I don't usually prefer the imperative voice "Note that..." in a WP article), but I think there is some ambiguity that needs addressing. Note that (sorry) the chart immediately above that paragraph enumerates the players' pieces, yet includes pawns in this enumeration, in apparent contradiction to the usage described for the term piece!
I think there are two usages of piece being confounded here. First is the physical entity that comes in the box when you buy a chess set, of which there are 32, usually wood, etc., etc. The other refers to the abstract entity which forms part of the players' assets of the game, which move in various ways, can capture, etc., etc. I think the enumeration of the set uses the first meaning, and the terminology usage describes the second.
If so, it would help to clarify this in the article. I am not going to dive in now, but may very well later if no one does so first. Please reply with any feedback, esp. if anyone thinks I am misunderstanding the issues here. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
should be removed because it is a bit of terminology that really has nothing to do with the rules, which is the topic of this article. I think it could be confusing to have it there. Every other use of "piece" in the article (and there are many) use it in the sense of including pawns. Bubba73 (talk), 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Note that in chess terminology, the pawn is often not called a 'piece'; with this usage, it would be said that each player has eight pieces and eight pawns. The terms 'man' or 'chessman' may be used to mean a piece or pawn.
because it doesn't have anything to do with the rules. It might go in some other article. Bubba73 (talk), 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Chess tables (either of wood or stone) are sometimes made with a chess board designed into the surface. Sometimes human chess boards are drawn on the floor or ground. Many travel boards fold into a box that the pieces fit into and some of them use magnets to hold the pieces in place.
I can't see anything in this article about noise. No mention of mobile phones ringing etc see Ruslan Ponomariov. Something to add. ChessCreator ( talk) 11:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4mm, use 4 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4 mm.
[?] **might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper
citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
[?] Done
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bubba73 (talk), 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article criteria Bubba73 (talk), 01:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still tweaking the article, but here are the criteria for a GA, with my comments in italics:
1. Well written:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
3. Broad in its coverage:
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
I considered changing the structure under Movement to this:
The reason is that each of these have their own main article. However, I haven't done it since that would make the section on most pieces very short. Does anyone have a suggestion of changing it *or leaving it as it is or using this structure)?
Bubba73
(talk),
23:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
or
This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Rules of chess. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nomination by Bubba73 |
---|
I want to formally nominate rules of chess for GA, but first I'll ask for reviews here. I've made comments on the Talk page. Bubba73 ( talk) 00:09, 28 August 2008 |
Review by SyG |
---|
Support for GA-class
As mentioned earlier, I think the article is ready for a GA-review. Actually I have already nominated the article at
WP:GAC, so it is only a matter of time.
SyG (
talk)
18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC) General remarks
Lead
Initial setup
Gameplay
End of the game
Competition rules
Irregularities
Equipment
History
These are my first remarks. All in all I find the article well balanced, which was not that easy to do given the risk of going into unneccessary details. Good job! SyG ( talk) 07:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
Remarks by Sjakkalle |
---|
Wasn't this the article which had to be deleted at all cost for violating WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE? :-) Anyway,
Otherwise, I think this is a strong article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Some replies to/support of the points listed by SyG
Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC) More ridiculous nagging from Sjakkalle"No matter what the actual color of the board, the lighter-colored squares are called "white", and the darker-colored squares are called "black"". Is this true? I have often heard the squares referred to as "light" and "dark", simply to avoid confusion with the "white" and "black" of the pieces. This tutorial uses "light" and "dark" for example. I don't think this is a big deal though as from a mathematical viewpoint, chess could be played just fine on a monochromatic board. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Replies to both of the aboveSchiller's book is based on the FIDE rules. That's why I used it most often. The main chapter of it follows the FIDE Articles. Chapter 16 is a two-page chapter on USCF rules. Bubba73 (talk), 18:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks to everyone for your suggestions. Bubba73 (talk), 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC) "Inverted rook" for a promoted piece - it isn't in the FIDE rules, but it is in Schiller's book. (Even the pawn on the side is in there, but that horrifies me since the pawn can roll to another square.) I'll make it a footnote. Bubba73 (talk), 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Castling by moving both pieces at the same time - the rules say that moves are to be made with only one hand. Under USCF rules, though, I think there is no penalty for moving both at the same time, just a warning. (There is even no penalty for moving the rook first in USCF!!!) I suppose you could pick up the king, pick up the rook, release the rook, and then release the king, but this is not covered. So it isn't clear to me what FIDE allows here. Bubba73 (talk), 23:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC) As far as using algebraic notation, I've changed references to say "the e6 square" and things like that. I hope that with the files and ranks labeled, that will be clear to readers. What do you think? "how about mentioning this game when Kramnick thought his opponent was offering a draw, - I didn't know about that or know a reference. It really helps to have other people reading this fresh. Bubba73 (talk), 00:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Position to illustrate draw by agreement - I didn't add this position, but I thought it was about as simple as it could be. Most draws by agreement have a more complex position. So far I haven't found a reference to a good position. If a better position isn't found, I suggest that it be removed. Bubba73 (talk), 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The rules don't seem to say. Second one is covered earlier in the section - you lose if your time expires (except for the impossible to checkmate clause). Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
First one - I think this would be getting into too many details. Also the rule says that the arbiter will try to restore the clock to what it was before the illegal move, i.e. nono time penalty. Second one, I don't know if the rules say. Bubba73 (talk), 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC) History and codification: I got the best dates I could. Sometimes the sources only said "middle ages", "17th century", etc. There was no specific date for these changes, usually they were adopted in some place and gradually spread. Sometimes it took a couple of centuries to become widespread. Most of the time the rules were different depending on the location. I split the section like that so that "history" would be the history of the rules themselves and codification would be about how they were written into books, etc. One of the sources lists them by groups of changes like done in the history section. The codification section is about rulebooks or when sets of rules were printed, and those are in chronological order. But I don't think mixing the codification with the history of the rules is good because often rules came into existence long before they were codified. Also, the codification section mostly covers more recent events than the history section. Bubba73 (talk), 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
|
Review by Philcha |
---|
Lead
Initial setup
Terminology
Gameplay
Movement
Basic moves
Castling
En passant
Pawn promotion
Check
End of the gameDraws
Time control
Competition rules
Timing
Philcha ( talk) 20:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Conduct
Equipment
Miscellaneous
-- Philcha ( talk) 12:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
History
ConclusionI agreed with SyG, this article is ready for GA review. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
Conclusion by SyG |
---|
The three reviewers (SyG, Philcha and Sjakkalle) think the article is ready for GA-review. SyG ( talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
Not everyone is interested in competition and I see no reason why mention that at one time the two sides could be referred to as White and Red, as they are in Through the Looking-Glass, cannot be included. It's interesting. Also mention of large marked out boards with people as players, areas provided for chess in some parks in America and even Wizards chess in Harry Potter. Obviously just a very brief mention and not too much but it's an encycolpedia entry not just an instruction manual. JMO. Mimi ( yack) 17:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Fidelogo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Bubba73 (talk), 05:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Even though the request if for a GA review, it won't go to FA without inline references. Quote from Citing sourcesInline citations are mandated by Wikipedia's featured article criteria and (to a lesser extent) the good article criteria. Use of citation templates help a lot. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I just wondered if some images in say, the lead and equipment sections could be switched for others? At the moment, the article looks like a repeat of the Chess page and maybe that's what the editor above meant when he said "A bit dry" and wanted to inject a bit of Alice in Wonderland (inappropriate though his suggestion was). I suppose a page on the rules is never going to be exciting, but maybe some fresh images might help? Any thoughts? Brittle heaven ( talk) 13:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
[5] [6] And maybe for later in the article, a checkmate image like this one by a fellow called Bubba73, whoever he is ... [7] Brittle heaven ( talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to leave it to those who have contributed to the article. Some good options there hopefully and another shot of a board and clock somewhere, if you want to use it. Brittle heaven ( talk) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to mention—in the 'chess diagram' section of Commons, there are also some animations of promotion, en passant etc, if they're any use. Brittle heaven ( talk) 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The section Equipment contains fractions like ¾ or ⅜ that I personally find very hard to read. That is contrary to the spirit of WP:ACCESS, especially for persons with visual disabilities. On the other hand, changing these fractions to full numbers like 0.75 would distort the citation and be less elegant (especially for 3/8). So I would like your opinion ! SyG ( talk) 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
title
attribute that includes the actual value, as IIRC the W3C Accessibility recommendation is that screen-readers should speak the content of title
attributes. --
Philcha (
talk)
20:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Most dictionaries don't list "gameplay" as a word. The New Oxford American Dictionary does, but the only definition is "the tactical aspects of a computer game". If so, then "gameplay" is being used incorrectly. Bubba73 (talk), 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I found this article very informative, and it was easier to understand than I would have guessed. The references seem good, and I believe the article is close to passing. The biggest problem I found was that so much of the information is in list form. Since this is an encyclopedia, prose is preferred. There are 13 lists (plus one sublist) in the prose of the article. Quite a few of them could be easily converted to prose, and I believe this would improve the readability of the article.
I will place the nomination on hold to allow for this concern to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The changes in the sandboxes look good. I would love to see them added to the article, as I think they will present the information in a more encyclopedic way. I do agree, however, that some of the lists should remain as lists. It is definitely the best way to present some of the information. Once they are added, I will look through the article some more to get a sense of how the balance between prose and lists is working. Thanks for the quick response to the review. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I've transferred the changes to the artcile, and also made a couple of images in "Codification" display properly. -- Philcha ( talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Detailed review
I found this article easy to follow and enjoyable to read. I will keep the nomination on hold for seven days to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. If more time is needed, an extension will be granted at that time if the article is being actively edited. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Recap:
Paragraph 3 does mention that the queen got its current move in the 15th century and that is already stated in the paragraph about 1200-1600. However, this is a recap to lead into the discussion of how that influenced changes in the pawn promotion rule. The only way I see to change it would be to take out the "in the 15th century" and replace it with "When the queen got its current move..." or "When the queen got its current move in the 15th century...". Do you have a preference? Bubba73 (talk), 05:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. According to the article history, you have not edited this article today. Are you making these changes in the sandbox version?
GaryColemanFan (
talk)
17:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Lets make changes on the main article only now. The two are out of sync.
Bubba73
(talk),
17:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding #8, you're absolutely right. Thanks for the explanation. For some reason, I looked at the scenario a few times and it didn't cross my mind that king wouldn't be in check. Obviously, every once in a while, I need someone to tell me, "You're wrong and your comments make you look stupid." Thanks again,
GaryColemanFan (
talk)
22:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Re "There are a few places in the article in which pictures could be left-aligned. Staggering them a bit would better comply with the MOS guidelines on image placement", Wikipedia:Mos#Images says images may be left aligned but does not explicitly recommend alternating them. In fact staggering the pics makes the text harder to read because the start-positions of lines become variable, so the reader has to search for the start rather than automically skip to the same X-coordinate - that's also why centre-aligned paras are condemned in articles on usability. -- Philcha ( talk) 09:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I went through the article again, and it's very close. I crossed off the completed items on my list, and only two remain. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, is {{ div col}} really a better way of doing columns? From a structural standpoint, of course divs are better than a table for this, but the template does break the columnness completely on half of my Windows browsers (Opera and IE7; works fine with Firefox and Chrome). Not that having all the see alsos in one column is a big deal, but it wasn't intended, was it? — JAO • T • C 11:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know much about chess so I might be wrong but the description of castling seems redundant to me. If the king and the rook have not moved yet wouldn't they always be on the same rank? Could the fourth be removed to make the definition more concise? 77.99.151.39 ( talk) 14:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This section is currently looking quite odd, with a diagram and quite a lot(in diagram terms) of text below a little wording besides and a in your face white gap. Suggest the Spanish made diagram is used.
Along side e.p can be explained.
SunCreator (
talk)
10:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Bubba, you reverted the edits of two guys claiming it was vandalism. Personally, I think that might have been good faith. For some time, I actually thought that not calling check would allow you to capture the king. And isn't it true that if you knock over the king it's considered a loss? Also, someone else made an edit that contained profanity yet it was identified as possible vandalization. What's going on? 98.117.158.220 ( talk) 03:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I know that this is to be a worldwide view of the subject, but errors stand out to me.
First, in the subjects of illegal moves and illegal initial positions. FIDE requires a complete retraction for the former and a restart in the latter - correct. In regular USCF play this is true only if the move is discovered the the prior (or first...) ten moves in both cases. (Just & Burg: 23-24, 26.) Since the 5th Edition USCF rulebook is quoted elsewhere in the article, this section should be edited. Even a simple and cited, "Some national bodies have other rules regarding illegal positions."
And where is it written that a draw offer is notated by "="? The only identity/equals sign I know of in Algebraic Notation indicates promotion. (Just & Burg 218.) And where is it written that draw offers should be notated? And again... it's my understanding that in FIDE the move must be made before it is written down - in USCF it may be required but optionally not (not in 5th Edition but rather in rulebook revisions since 5th ed. on USCF's website.)
And again, Timing is not completely correct, as USCF differs significantly in how to claim Insufficient Losing Chances. But oh, well.
Good article, except for the errors and imcompleteness. ;)
I'd edit it myself. But it's under semi-protection, so I can't. 98.228.92.5 ( talk) 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet., from FIDE LAWS of CHESS, page 11. SunCreator ( talk) 23:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Somewhat confused by this wording at the moment, maybe I'm misreading.
If player A calls attention to the fact that player B is out of time, but it is then noted that player A is also out of time, then: * If a sudden death control is not being used, the game continues in the next time control (Schiller 2003:23). * if the game is played under a sudden death time control (each player has a fixed amount of time no matter how many moves are played), then if it can be established which player ran out of time first, the game is lost by that player; otherwise the game is drawn (Schiller 2003:29).
6.11 says
6.11 If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first then: a. the game shall continue if it happens in any period of the game except the last period b. the game is drawn if it happens in the period of a game, in which all remaining moves must be completed.
10.4 does not appear to exist.
Changes were made to the article about promotion concerning the old movements of the queen and bishop, and which was weaker. According to A Short History of Chess (in the references), page 29ff, the old bishop's move was jumping two squares diagonally (it could jump over pieces) and the old queen's movement was moving one square diagonally. It is debatable about which is weaker or stronger - the bishop could jump over pieces and could get across the board faster than the queen, but it could reach only half as many squares as the queen. However, that reference gives the old queen as the weaker piece. Furthermore, on page 59 it talks about promotion. It says that it was like a battlefield promotion when the foot soldier would be promoted to the weakest officer/piece (the queen at the time). So it is debatable about which of the ancient pieces was weaker but I think it is clear that they at least considered the old queen to be the weakest. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
When we were trying to get this article to Good Article status, we had to replace he/his with non-gender specific terms. Personally I prefer he/his, but the change was needed to get the article to GA. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I have sources for FIDE editions of the rules in 1929, 1952, 1966, 1974, 1979, 1982, 1984, 1988, and 1992, but no information about editions since then. Does anyone know? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
I think it might be a good idea to reorganize the "movement" section. What I propose would be take out the "basic moves" sub-section and replace it with a sub-section (same level) for each of the pieces. Put the diagram(s) for each piece in their respective section. Incorporate castling, en passant, and promotion as sub-sub-sections within the piece sub-sections (king, pawn, and pawn, resp.). What do you think? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposed structure:
You should enumerate the most commonly used timings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
hey guys! long time chess player and student but I'm still kinda new to wikipedia and I'd like to iron out some of the language in the check section. can someone grant me access? Scottdude2000 ( talk) 00:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I've cleaned up a lot of the language in the section on check. I also added two sub sections on forks and pins since the last paragraph on check was a short paragraph about pins. I think the nature of check warrants these two sections on pins and forks (especially since they aren't really discussed anywhere else in length in this article) and I feel they are a major part of strategic checking.
Scottdude2000 (
talk)
07:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the new sections on pins and forks should be in the article. The article is about the rules, and pins and forks are not in the rules. The fact that a piece pinned to the king can't move is covered by the player not being able to make a move that would leave his king in check. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, "attacking" the checking piece is not a way out of check. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm reverting the edit because no sources give "attack" and "defend" as ways out of check - I think it is misleading. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
since it really seems to bother bubba73 that I added pins and forks I propose a comprimise. I'm going to pull out the section on forks since he's right that it belongs more in chess strategy. I appologise, I originally plaed that there because it kinda goes hand in hand with pins but in the strictest technical sense of the word it is not a rule, it's a strategy. however, I'm leaving pins in since the article already began to cover pins (only haphazardly and redundantly) and ""didn't"" cover the fact that a pinned piece is still considered a threat to the opposing king and therefor the king can't enter a pinned piece's zone of attack. I can't stress enough that if you leave this out of an article on the rules of chess then those rules are incomplete. so to cover this rule one must cover what a pin is in at least the smallest degree and footnote a link to the pins page... I gave pins a very small amount of the articles attention. now can we all say this is a fair compromise? bubb73 what do you think? Scottdude2000 ( talk) 20:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
(Since forks are no longer an issue, this opinion is confined to the new section on pins.) Per Wikipedia's verifiability requirement, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. In this case, if the section on pins relates to a rule of chess, then it should be easy enough to add a source that explicitly identifies it as a rule. As long as the material remains unverifiable, it should be removed. -- rgpk ( comment) 21:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts:
I restored the info about the three ways to get out of check to the correct version and added a reference. About 1,500 people read this article each day, so hundreds may have read the incorrect information. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
quick question (again this is the redundancy type stuff I've been trying to get rid of for clarity's sake) this line "This also means that a player cannot place his king on any square adjacent to the enemy king, because doing so would leave their king able to be taken by the enemy king and therefore in check." in the check section. is it really necessary to note we can't specifically put the king next to another king? we already noted in the first sentance you can't put a king in check... do we really need to start listing off all the different ways you can break this rule? can we cut it so it reads "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king in check" instead of "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king in check, even if the checking piece cannot move due to a pin, i.e. moving it would expose their own king to check. This also means that a player cannot place his king on any square adjacent to the enemy king, because doing so would leave his king able to be taken by the enemy king and therefore in check." which has the pin thing covered later and the adjacent square thing which is redundant. Scottdude2000 ( talk) 08:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
can one of you formatting geniuses help me figure out how to keep the diagram for the check section not overlap onto the checkmate section? I don't want to confuse someone. Scottdude2000 ( talk) 07:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
can I just ask why we are even going to have an article on chess if we're going to exactly copy what our sources say? if we aren't going to do the task of translating this to laymen's what's the point of even having this article? why not at that point just delete everything and put a link up to FIDE's website? bubba seems to want everything to exactly mimmic the rule books which I think doesn't really help the average person learn the rules of chess. he has thrown every reason he can at me to not make any kind of change to what already exists. I know I'm new but I'm not dumb. can we please reach some kind of conclusion? do you guys think any of my contributions were valuable or did I completely waste my time like bubba seems to be implying? Scottdude2000 ( talk) 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
To try to answer your question at the top of this section, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It is based on reliable, verifyable published (mostly) secondary sources.
And this article is about he rules of chess - not a general article about chess, not an article about chess strategy or chess tactics. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing in the rules about:
These have nothing to do with the rules of chess. Some people did a lot of work to get this article to Good Article status. With this in there it will lose that status. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that if you want to elaborate on situations relating to a pin, then you need to do so using the wording in rule 3.9 in [8], which says "even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check". The current text is unnecessarily confusing (though the diagram is very clear). -- rgpk ( comment) 17:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
bubba. it's not neccesary to note that it's impossible to put a peice in between a pawn and a king right next to eachother. thats called being redundant. me removing that isn't me endorcing the idea that kings can block adjacent pawns. just like it's not neccesary to not that you can't get out of chess by moving your king to the other side of the board... it's obvious!. would not including that mean I believe we can move kings to the other side of the board? the original draft before I touched it listed every peice that couldn't have a peice placed inbetween it and the king. and the list included every piece on the board! please stop edit warring and starting meaningless fights to make a point. at the very least, if you feel like being childish. take it to the talk page? Scottdude2000 ( talk) 18:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
If it is obvious that you can't block a check from a pawn then it is also obvious that you can't block a check from a knight. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
yes only slightly less obvious so I left it in but I'd be just as happy with that coming out. I think one of my drafts that you redacted had a clean version without the knight. again why would you need to explain that a non directionally moving piece can't have it's path obstructed? lets take that out too. Scottdude2000 ( talk) 18:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking the section on checkmate might need a blurb about forced mates. since essentially every checkmate is a forced mate. what does the group say? Scottdude2000 ( talk) 19:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I make small edits: you freak out. I make big edits: you freak out and torch em all in one swift move. did you want me to make big edits so you could eliminate them more quickly? btw you also just killed other people's edits who agreed with the pins check paragraph. it's a rule. it has to be included in the rules of chess. this is a non negotiable. you didn't even state your case against the edits on the talk page. Scottdude2000 ( talk) 23:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
when chess books discuss alternate moves of competition games, did the players really try out all the variations during competition?
when trading is used
OK, thanks. Could someone explain to a casual player what exactly is meant by a "score of 55%" (in terms of win/lose/draw)? -- Slashme 05:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I get it now. Thanks. I have modified the article in a way that I understand. Hope that works for the other novices as well ;-) -- Slashme 13:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
If fifty moves have been played by each player without a piece being taken or a pawn moved (in tournament play, some situations are extended to one hundred moves).
I´m quite confident that this was abandond a few years ago. -- Vulture
Back when I was an active USCF player, there was an addendum to the 50-move rule published by the USCF explicitly laying out one specific set of conditions under which 100 moves would be allowed: it was for certain Knight-vs-Pawn endings, laid out in great detail in the addendum. I still have it in my paper copy of the rulebook. If Vaulture says it was abandoned, and you can't find it in the present rules, I have no doubt that it was in fact abandoned. I was not able to find any information about exactly when that happened, or why. -- Lee Daniel Crocker
Here is my understanding: The original theory behind the fifty-move rule was that pawnless endgames (e.g. KBN vs K) take less than fifty moves to win if you know what you are doing. If you don't know what you are doing, you don't get to prolong the game indefinitely just because you know there is a win there somewhere.
When computers started to do retrograde analysis, they discovered pawnless situations where the distance to mate was greater than fifty moves, and situations involving pawns where the stronger side had a win, but optimal play from both sides went more than fifty moves without a pawn advance. Therefore the rules were changed to give the stronger side a chance to convert those endgames by allowing one hundred moves in some situations.
The rapid proliferation of endgame tablebases uncovered more and more "exceptions" to the fifty-move rule, and even some cases where more than one hundred moves were necessary to convert. (Apparently 243 moves to conversion (262 to mate) is the current record. See [1].) Tournament organizers saw the complexity of the draw rules spinning out of control, and perhaps even requiring a computer to say whether someone was eligible to claim a draw or not. In face of looming rule insanity, the original fifty-move rule was restored. In theoretical cases where there is a win on the board that takes more than fifty moves to convert, it's just too bad for the stronger side.
-- Fritzlein
Is there a particular reason why this is separated from the Chess article? -- Zoe
Maybe it should be "Official Rules of Chess"? – Floorsheim 08:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I thought there was some sort of international convention. Maybe we could reference that. My concern is that the rules listed seem too constrictive. Of the many times I've played chess, for example, I've never played it in such a way that if you touch a piece you have to move it. It seems as though if we don't reference an international convention, we'll have to go into detail about variations on the rules. – Floorsheim 00:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The bracketed list of material sufficient to checkmate in the Timing section seems flawed to me. It is perfectly possible to checkmate with only two Knights against a hasted defence, so it shouldn't be an draw if the defender runs out of time, should it? (And it is of course also possible to checkmate with only one Knight if the defender has a few ill-placed pieces in the King's way...) -- Jao 15:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
In contrast to FIDE, the USCF no longer requires the king to be touched first in castling. Touching the rook first is OK if the player "intends to castle". I can't get them to clarify how you know that a person "intends to castle" if, say, he moves his rook and then reaches for the king, but doesn't touch it and draws his hand away. Is that "intent to castle"? They also won't clarify what happens if the player moves the rook and doesn't immediately move the king. They won't say if he is committed to a rook move, commited to castling, or what. They also don't say what happens if the player moves the rook then the other player moves or starts to move and then the first player says that he was intending to castle. Bubba73 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
-I don't think the "convenient practice" is common enough or useful enough to include.
-"white wins 10% more games" would mean that white wins 110% as many games as black wins. Using the numbers from "chess games explorer" with white starting with e4 or d4, I get white winning 136% as many games as black wins, or better than 4 to 3. Besides, this is "original research", and besides that it probably doesn't belong in an article about rules anyway.
-I don't think we want to suggest that there's consensus about what happens in chess with perfect play. It's really not known and it may well never be.
-I thought it worth explaining castling and en passant in this article. I tried to be brief. Took out some of the tournament-related detail about castling though--I think it's a bit much. Obviously if people disagree they can put it back.
-Added resignation, which was missing.
DanielCristofani 14:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something (and I am new to contributing to Wikipedia), but what was the purpose of 70.172.215.105's change to the Draws section adding the note about Kings giving check to each other? I suppose some variant might make that reasonable, but it seems bogus to me.
JTamplin 01:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it doesn't make sense, I don't know why it was added, and I've just reverted it. DanielCristofani 03:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The actual colors of chess sets are usually white and black, cream and brown, red and black, or buff and green; but the pieces and squares are always referred to as "white" and "black". -- Now I've seen white and red or cream and red, but never black and red. Is this an error, or just me? Also, it is worth mentioning that at one time the two sides could be referred to as White and Red (as they are in Through the Looking-Glass)? 213.249.135.36 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's the fact that it's 5:30am, but the starting position for chess looks incorrect to me. As the old adage states (mentioned in this article), queen on colour and white on right -- of course this does not jive with the layout displayed which clearly has the queens on the opposite colour (as well as the kings). I'm almost positive this is wrong and I'm wondering why it's gone unnoticed... maybe lack of sleep is making me miss something. Professor Ninja 10:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The Rules of chess were redesignated the Laws of chess quite some time ago. May I have views, please, on retitling the article accordingly. BlueValour 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual. This is essentially all this article is.-- Crossmr 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it might have been viewed as that when you listed it for deletion, but it isn't anymore.... 193.128.87.36 09:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The article says "To describe moves and locations on the board, either algebraic chess notation or the almost obsolete descriptive chess notation is used." In my mind, DN is obsolete, and almost extinct. should that be changed? Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Do the "advanced rules" and "controversy" sections still need to be here? I think they are a direct copy from fifty move rule, and that article is linked in the main body (under "Draws") and also in the list of articles about specific rules near the end. Bubba73 (talk), 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I recently tried to shrink the table of six diagrams illustrating piece movements. My desire was to allow more space on the left side of the page for the text to wrap through--the gap was quite narrow. While I was able to shorten the captions without losing much, the table still has a lot of dead space. It appears that the diagram template itself inserts a good deal of space around itself although reading its code I cannot demonstrate that to myself. Neither can I make alignment changes which allows for more horizontal space (although I did vertically top-justify the diagrams, which looks better).
Now I like the idea of having the six illustrations all together. But its impact on the text flow is something I am not satisfied with. I am not a table markup or html formatting guru and would like to ask for some feedback as to whether there is an easy way to lay out the diagrams in a lot less horizontal space. We could even revisit putting all six in one table, although to me that seems like a Plan B.
Oh, and feel free to revert my table edit; the only tangible improvement was the vertical justification which can easily be specifically readded. Thanks, Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the recent edit and revert about moving the king and then touching the the rook - the revert (edit comment "Touching a rook AFTER making the king part of a castling is immaterial, as the corresponding rook move MUST be made anyway") is correct. FIDE rule 4.6 and USCF rule 9C state that after the king has been released on a square two squares over, the player is committed to castling that way, if it is legal. Bubba73 (talk), 00:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
A heads up: I tried to improve the wording of the goal in the intro. By using the word "inevitable" I hoped to avoid the necessity of explaining that the king doesn't actually get captured (I moved that into the body). I also trimmed out reference to protecting one's own king from this; I felt the symmetry of the game made this idea clear enough so that the intro would read better if omitted. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 19:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In the Setup section, there is a short paragraph on the usage of the term "piece", as well as "(chess)man". No qualms with the content (although I don't usually prefer the imperative voice "Note that..." in a WP article), but I think there is some ambiguity that needs addressing. Note that (sorry) the chart immediately above that paragraph enumerates the players' pieces, yet includes pawns in this enumeration, in apparent contradiction to the usage described for the term piece!
I think there are two usages of piece being confounded here. First is the physical entity that comes in the box when you buy a chess set, of which there are 32, usually wood, etc., etc. The other refers to the abstract entity which forms part of the players' assets of the game, which move in various ways, can capture, etc., etc. I think the enumeration of the set uses the first meaning, and the terminology usage describes the second.
If so, it would help to clarify this in the article. I am not going to dive in now, but may very well later if no one does so first. Please reply with any feedback, esp. if anyone thinks I am misunderstanding the issues here. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
should be removed because it is a bit of terminology that really has nothing to do with the rules, which is the topic of this article. I think it could be confusing to have it there. Every other use of "piece" in the article (and there are many) use it in the sense of including pawns. Bubba73 (talk), 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Note that in chess terminology, the pawn is often not called a 'piece'; with this usage, it would be said that each player has eight pieces and eight pawns. The terms 'man' or 'chessman' may be used to mean a piece or pawn.
because it doesn't have anything to do with the rules. It might go in some other article. Bubba73 (talk), 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Chess tables (either of wood or stone) are sometimes made with a chess board designed into the surface. Sometimes human chess boards are drawn on the floor or ground. Many travel boards fold into a box that the pieces fit into and some of them use magnets to hold the pieces in place.
I can't see anything in this article about noise. No mention of mobile phones ringing etc see Ruslan Ponomariov. Something to add. ChessCreator ( talk) 11:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4mm, use 4 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4 mm.
[?] **might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper
citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
[?] Done
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bubba73 (talk), 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article criteria Bubba73 (talk), 01:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still tweaking the article, but here are the criteria for a GA, with my comments in italics:
1. Well written:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
3. Broad in its coverage:
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
I considered changing the structure under Movement to this:
The reason is that each of these have their own main article. However, I haven't done it since that would make the section on most pieces very short. Does anyone have a suggestion of changing it *or leaving it as it is or using this structure)?
Bubba73
(talk),
23:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
or
This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Rules of chess. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nomination by Bubba73 |
---|
I want to formally nominate rules of chess for GA, but first I'll ask for reviews here. I've made comments on the Talk page. Bubba73 ( talk) 00:09, 28 August 2008 |
Review by SyG |
---|
Support for GA-class
As mentioned earlier, I think the article is ready for a GA-review. Actually I have already nominated the article at
WP:GAC, so it is only a matter of time.
SyG (
talk)
18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC) General remarks
Lead
Initial setup
Gameplay
End of the game
Competition rules
Irregularities
Equipment
History
These are my first remarks. All in all I find the article well balanced, which was not that easy to do given the risk of going into unneccessary details. Good job! SyG ( talk) 07:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
Remarks by Sjakkalle |
---|
Wasn't this the article which had to be deleted at all cost for violating WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE? :-) Anyway,
Otherwise, I think this is a strong article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Some replies to/support of the points listed by SyG
Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC) More ridiculous nagging from Sjakkalle"No matter what the actual color of the board, the lighter-colored squares are called "white", and the darker-colored squares are called "black"". Is this true? I have often heard the squares referred to as "light" and "dark", simply to avoid confusion with the "white" and "black" of the pieces. This tutorial uses "light" and "dark" for example. I don't think this is a big deal though as from a mathematical viewpoint, chess could be played just fine on a monochromatic board. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Replies to both of the aboveSchiller's book is based on the FIDE rules. That's why I used it most often. The main chapter of it follows the FIDE Articles. Chapter 16 is a two-page chapter on USCF rules. Bubba73 (talk), 18:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks to everyone for your suggestions. Bubba73 (talk), 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC) "Inverted rook" for a promoted piece - it isn't in the FIDE rules, but it is in Schiller's book. (Even the pawn on the side is in there, but that horrifies me since the pawn can roll to another square.) I'll make it a footnote. Bubba73 (talk), 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Castling by moving both pieces at the same time - the rules say that moves are to be made with only one hand. Under USCF rules, though, I think there is no penalty for moving both at the same time, just a warning. (There is even no penalty for moving the rook first in USCF!!!) I suppose you could pick up the king, pick up the rook, release the rook, and then release the king, but this is not covered. So it isn't clear to me what FIDE allows here. Bubba73 (talk), 23:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC) As far as using algebraic notation, I've changed references to say "the e6 square" and things like that. I hope that with the files and ranks labeled, that will be clear to readers. What do you think? "how about mentioning this game when Kramnick thought his opponent was offering a draw, - I didn't know about that or know a reference. It really helps to have other people reading this fresh. Bubba73 (talk), 00:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Position to illustrate draw by agreement - I didn't add this position, but I thought it was about as simple as it could be. Most draws by agreement have a more complex position. So far I haven't found a reference to a good position. If a better position isn't found, I suggest that it be removed. Bubba73 (talk), 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The rules don't seem to say. Second one is covered earlier in the section - you lose if your time expires (except for the impossible to checkmate clause). Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
First one - I think this would be getting into too many details. Also the rule says that the arbiter will try to restore the clock to what it was before the illegal move, i.e. nono time penalty. Second one, I don't know if the rules say. Bubba73 (talk), 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC) History and codification: I got the best dates I could. Sometimes the sources only said "middle ages", "17th century", etc. There was no specific date for these changes, usually they were adopted in some place and gradually spread. Sometimes it took a couple of centuries to become widespread. Most of the time the rules were different depending on the location. I split the section like that so that "history" would be the history of the rules themselves and codification would be about how they were written into books, etc. One of the sources lists them by groups of changes like done in the history section. The codification section is about rulebooks or when sets of rules were printed, and those are in chronological order. But I don't think mixing the codification with the history of the rules is good because often rules came into existence long before they were codified. Also, the codification section mostly covers more recent events than the history section. Bubba73 (talk), 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
|
Review by Philcha |
---|
Lead
Initial setup
Terminology
Gameplay
Movement
Basic moves
Castling
En passant
Pawn promotion
Check
End of the gameDraws
Time control
Competition rules
Timing
Philcha ( talk) 20:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Conduct
Equipment
Miscellaneous
-- Philcha ( talk) 12:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
History
ConclusionI agreed with SyG, this article is ready for GA review. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
Conclusion by SyG |
---|
The three reviewers (SyG, Philcha and Sjakkalle) think the article is ready for GA-review. SyG ( talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
Not everyone is interested in competition and I see no reason why mention that at one time the two sides could be referred to as White and Red, as they are in Through the Looking-Glass, cannot be included. It's interesting. Also mention of large marked out boards with people as players, areas provided for chess in some parks in America and even Wizards chess in Harry Potter. Obviously just a very brief mention and not too much but it's an encycolpedia entry not just an instruction manual. JMO. Mimi ( yack) 17:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Fidelogo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Bubba73 (talk), 05:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Even though the request if for a GA review, it won't go to FA without inline references. Quote from Citing sourcesInline citations are mandated by Wikipedia's featured article criteria and (to a lesser extent) the good article criteria. Use of citation templates help a lot. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I just wondered if some images in say, the lead and equipment sections could be switched for others? At the moment, the article looks like a repeat of the Chess page and maybe that's what the editor above meant when he said "A bit dry" and wanted to inject a bit of Alice in Wonderland (inappropriate though his suggestion was). I suppose a page on the rules is never going to be exciting, but maybe some fresh images might help? Any thoughts? Brittle heaven ( talk) 13:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
[5] [6] And maybe for later in the article, a checkmate image like this one by a fellow called Bubba73, whoever he is ... [7] Brittle heaven ( talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to leave it to those who have contributed to the article. Some good options there hopefully and another shot of a board and clock somewhere, if you want to use it. Brittle heaven ( talk) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to mention—in the 'chess diagram' section of Commons, there are also some animations of promotion, en passant etc, if they're any use. Brittle heaven ( talk) 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The section Equipment contains fractions like ¾ or ⅜ that I personally find very hard to read. That is contrary to the spirit of WP:ACCESS, especially for persons with visual disabilities. On the other hand, changing these fractions to full numbers like 0.75 would distort the citation and be less elegant (especially for 3/8). So I would like your opinion ! SyG ( talk) 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
title
attribute that includes the actual value, as IIRC the W3C Accessibility recommendation is that screen-readers should speak the content of title
attributes. --
Philcha (
talk)
20:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Most dictionaries don't list "gameplay" as a word. The New Oxford American Dictionary does, but the only definition is "the tactical aspects of a computer game". If so, then "gameplay" is being used incorrectly. Bubba73 (talk), 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I found this article very informative, and it was easier to understand than I would have guessed. The references seem good, and I believe the article is close to passing. The biggest problem I found was that so much of the information is in list form. Since this is an encyclopedia, prose is preferred. There are 13 lists (plus one sublist) in the prose of the article. Quite a few of them could be easily converted to prose, and I believe this would improve the readability of the article.
I will place the nomination on hold to allow for this concern to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The changes in the sandboxes look good. I would love to see them added to the article, as I think they will present the information in a more encyclopedic way. I do agree, however, that some of the lists should remain as lists. It is definitely the best way to present some of the information. Once they are added, I will look through the article some more to get a sense of how the balance between prose and lists is working. Thanks for the quick response to the review. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I've transferred the changes to the artcile, and also made a couple of images in "Codification" display properly. -- Philcha ( talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Detailed review
I found this article easy to follow and enjoyable to read. I will keep the nomination on hold for seven days to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. If more time is needed, an extension will be granted at that time if the article is being actively edited. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Recap:
Paragraph 3 does mention that the queen got its current move in the 15th century and that is already stated in the paragraph about 1200-1600. However, this is a recap to lead into the discussion of how that influenced changes in the pawn promotion rule. The only way I see to change it would be to take out the "in the 15th century" and replace it with "When the queen got its current move..." or "When the queen got its current move in the 15th century...". Do you have a preference? Bubba73 (talk), 05:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. According to the article history, you have not edited this article today. Are you making these changes in the sandbox version?
GaryColemanFan (
talk)
17:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Lets make changes on the main article only now. The two are out of sync.
Bubba73
(talk),
17:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding #8, you're absolutely right. Thanks for the explanation. For some reason, I looked at the scenario a few times and it didn't cross my mind that king wouldn't be in check. Obviously, every once in a while, I need someone to tell me, "You're wrong and your comments make you look stupid." Thanks again,
GaryColemanFan (
talk)
22:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Re "There are a few places in the article in which pictures could be left-aligned. Staggering them a bit would better comply with the MOS guidelines on image placement", Wikipedia:Mos#Images says images may be left aligned but does not explicitly recommend alternating them. In fact staggering the pics makes the text harder to read because the start-positions of lines become variable, so the reader has to search for the start rather than automically skip to the same X-coordinate - that's also why centre-aligned paras are condemned in articles on usability. -- Philcha ( talk) 09:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I went through the article again, and it's very close. I crossed off the completed items on my list, and only two remain. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, is {{ div col}} really a better way of doing columns? From a structural standpoint, of course divs are better than a table for this, but the template does break the columnness completely on half of my Windows browsers (Opera and IE7; works fine with Firefox and Chrome). Not that having all the see alsos in one column is a big deal, but it wasn't intended, was it? — JAO • T • C 11:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know much about chess so I might be wrong but the description of castling seems redundant to me. If the king and the rook have not moved yet wouldn't they always be on the same rank? Could the fourth be removed to make the definition more concise? 77.99.151.39 ( talk) 14:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This section is currently looking quite odd, with a diagram and quite a lot(in diagram terms) of text below a little wording besides and a in your face white gap. Suggest the Spanish made diagram is used.
Along side e.p can be explained.
SunCreator (
talk)
10:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Bubba, you reverted the edits of two guys claiming it was vandalism. Personally, I think that might have been good faith. For some time, I actually thought that not calling check would allow you to capture the king. And isn't it true that if you knock over the king it's considered a loss? Also, someone else made an edit that contained profanity yet it was identified as possible vandalization. What's going on? 98.117.158.220 ( talk) 03:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I know that this is to be a worldwide view of the subject, but errors stand out to me.
First, in the subjects of illegal moves and illegal initial positions. FIDE requires a complete retraction for the former and a restart in the latter - correct. In regular USCF play this is true only if the move is discovered the the prior (or first...) ten moves in both cases. (Just & Burg: 23-24, 26.) Since the 5th Edition USCF rulebook is quoted elsewhere in the article, this section should be edited. Even a simple and cited, "Some national bodies have other rules regarding illegal positions."
And where is it written that a draw offer is notated by "="? The only identity/equals sign I know of in Algebraic Notation indicates promotion. (Just & Burg 218.) And where is it written that draw offers should be notated? And again... it's my understanding that in FIDE the move must be made before it is written down - in USCF it may be required but optionally not (not in 5th Edition but rather in rulebook revisions since 5th ed. on USCF's website.)
And again, Timing is not completely correct, as USCF differs significantly in how to claim Insufficient Losing Chances. But oh, well.
Good article, except for the errors and imcompleteness. ;)
I'd edit it myself. But it's under semi-protection, so I can't. 98.228.92.5 ( talk) 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet., from FIDE LAWS of CHESS, page 11. SunCreator ( talk) 23:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Somewhat confused by this wording at the moment, maybe I'm misreading.
If player A calls attention to the fact that player B is out of time, but it is then noted that player A is also out of time, then: * If a sudden death control is not being used, the game continues in the next time control (Schiller 2003:23). * if the game is played under a sudden death time control (each player has a fixed amount of time no matter how many moves are played), then if it can be established which player ran out of time first, the game is lost by that player; otherwise the game is drawn (Schiller 2003:29).
6.11 says
6.11 If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first then: a. the game shall continue if it happens in any period of the game except the last period b. the game is drawn if it happens in the period of a game, in which all remaining moves must be completed.
10.4 does not appear to exist.
Changes were made to the article about promotion concerning the old movements of the queen and bishop, and which was weaker. According to A Short History of Chess (in the references), page 29ff, the old bishop's move was jumping two squares diagonally (it could jump over pieces) and the old queen's movement was moving one square diagonally. It is debatable about which is weaker or stronger - the bishop could jump over pieces and could get across the board faster than the queen, but it could reach only half as many squares as the queen. However, that reference gives the old queen as the weaker piece. Furthermore, on page 59 it talks about promotion. It says that it was like a battlefield promotion when the foot soldier would be promoted to the weakest officer/piece (the queen at the time). So it is debatable about which of the ancient pieces was weaker but I think it is clear that they at least considered the old queen to be the weakest. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
When we were trying to get this article to Good Article status, we had to replace he/his with non-gender specific terms. Personally I prefer he/his, but the change was needed to get the article to GA. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I have sources for FIDE editions of the rules in 1929, 1952, 1966, 1974, 1979, 1982, 1984, 1988, and 1992, but no information about editions since then. Does anyone know? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
I think it might be a good idea to reorganize the "movement" section. What I propose would be take out the "basic moves" sub-section and replace it with a sub-section (same level) for each of the pieces. Put the diagram(s) for each piece in their respective section. Incorporate castling, en passant, and promotion as sub-sub-sections within the piece sub-sections (king, pawn, and pawn, resp.). What do you think? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposed structure:
You should enumerate the most commonly used timings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
hey guys! long time chess player and student but I'm still kinda new to wikipedia and I'd like to iron out some of the language in the check section. can someone grant me access? Scottdude2000 ( talk) 00:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I've cleaned up a lot of the language in the section on check. I also added two sub sections on forks and pins since the last paragraph on check was a short paragraph about pins. I think the nature of check warrants these two sections on pins and forks (especially since they aren't really discussed anywhere else in length in this article) and I feel they are a major part of strategic checking.
Scottdude2000 (
talk)
07:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the new sections on pins and forks should be in the article. The article is about the rules, and pins and forks are not in the rules. The fact that a piece pinned to the king can't move is covered by the player not being able to make a move that would leave his king in check. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, "attacking" the checking piece is not a way out of check. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm reverting the edit because no sources give "attack" and "defend" as ways out of check - I think it is misleading. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
since it really seems to bother bubba73 that I added pins and forks I propose a comprimise. I'm going to pull out the section on forks since he's right that it belongs more in chess strategy. I appologise, I originally plaed that there because it kinda goes hand in hand with pins but in the strictest technical sense of the word it is not a rule, it's a strategy. however, I'm leaving pins in since the article already began to cover pins (only haphazardly and redundantly) and ""didn't"" cover the fact that a pinned piece is still considered a threat to the opposing king and therefor the king can't enter a pinned piece's zone of attack. I can't stress enough that if you leave this out of an article on the rules of chess then those rules are incomplete. so to cover this rule one must cover what a pin is in at least the smallest degree and footnote a link to the pins page... I gave pins a very small amount of the articles attention. now can we all say this is a fair compromise? bubb73 what do you think? Scottdude2000 ( talk) 20:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
(Since forks are no longer an issue, this opinion is confined to the new section on pins.) Per Wikipedia's verifiability requirement, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. In this case, if the section on pins relates to a rule of chess, then it should be easy enough to add a source that explicitly identifies it as a rule. As long as the material remains unverifiable, it should be removed. -- rgpk ( comment) 21:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts:
I restored the info about the three ways to get out of check to the correct version and added a reference. About 1,500 people read this article each day, so hundreds may have read the incorrect information. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
quick question (again this is the redundancy type stuff I've been trying to get rid of for clarity's sake) this line "This also means that a player cannot place his king on any square adjacent to the enemy king, because doing so would leave their king able to be taken by the enemy king and therefore in check." in the check section. is it really necessary to note we can't specifically put the king next to another king? we already noted in the first sentance you can't put a king in check... do we really need to start listing off all the different ways you can break this rule? can we cut it so it reads "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king in check" instead of "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king in check, even if the checking piece cannot move due to a pin, i.e. moving it would expose their own king to check. This also means that a player cannot place his king on any square adjacent to the enemy king, because doing so would leave his king able to be taken by the enemy king and therefore in check." which has the pin thing covered later and the adjacent square thing which is redundant. Scottdude2000 ( talk) 08:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
can one of you formatting geniuses help me figure out how to keep the diagram for the check section not overlap onto the checkmate section? I don't want to confuse someone. Scottdude2000 ( talk) 07:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
can I just ask why we are even going to have an article on chess if we're going to exactly copy what our sources say? if we aren't going to do the task of translating this to laymen's what's the point of even having this article? why not at that point just delete everything and put a link up to FIDE's website? bubba seems to want everything to exactly mimmic the rule books which I think doesn't really help the average person learn the rules of chess. he has thrown every reason he can at me to not make any kind of change to what already exists. I know I'm new but I'm not dumb. can we please reach some kind of conclusion? do you guys think any of my contributions were valuable or did I completely waste my time like bubba seems to be implying? Scottdude2000 ( talk) 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
To try to answer your question at the top of this section, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It is based on reliable, verifyable published (mostly) secondary sources.
And this article is about he rules of chess - not a general article about chess, not an article about chess strategy or chess tactics. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing in the rules about:
These have nothing to do with the rules of chess. Some people did a lot of work to get this article to Good Article status. With this in there it will lose that status. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that if you want to elaborate on situations relating to a pin, then you need to do so using the wording in rule 3.9 in [8], which says "even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check". The current text is unnecessarily confusing (though the diagram is very clear). -- rgpk ( comment) 17:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
bubba. it's not neccesary to note that it's impossible to put a peice in between a pawn and a king right next to eachother. thats called being redundant. me removing that isn't me endorcing the idea that kings can block adjacent pawns. just like it's not neccesary to not that you can't get out of chess by moving your king to the other side of the board... it's obvious!. would not including that mean I believe we can move kings to the other side of the board? the original draft before I touched it listed every peice that couldn't have a peice placed inbetween it and the king. and the list included every piece on the board! please stop edit warring and starting meaningless fights to make a point. at the very least, if you feel like being childish. take it to the talk page? Scottdude2000 ( talk) 18:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
If it is obvious that you can't block a check from a pawn then it is also obvious that you can't block a check from a knight. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
yes only slightly less obvious so I left it in but I'd be just as happy with that coming out. I think one of my drafts that you redacted had a clean version without the knight. again why would you need to explain that a non directionally moving piece can't have it's path obstructed? lets take that out too. Scottdude2000 ( talk) 18:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking the section on checkmate might need a blurb about forced mates. since essentially every checkmate is a forced mate. what does the group say? Scottdude2000 ( talk) 19:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I make small edits: you freak out. I make big edits: you freak out and torch em all in one swift move. did you want me to make big edits so you could eliminate them more quickly? btw you also just killed other people's edits who agreed with the pins check paragraph. it's a rule. it has to be included in the rules of chess. this is a non negotiable. you didn't even state your case against the edits on the talk page. Scottdude2000 ( talk) 23:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)