Talk:Chess

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Former featured articleChess is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 10, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 7, 2002Refreshing brilliant proseKept
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
December 25, 2006Featured article reviewKept
January 8, 2008Featured article reviewKept
October 13, 2010Featured article reviewKept
January 21, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

FIDE Definition

[edit]

Shouldn't we be using the actual FIDE acronym (Fédération Internationale des Échecs) rather than (International Chess Federation)?

Horizontally adjacent

[edit]

I explained why "horizontally adjacent" is not meaningful in describing the conditions for En Passant. Your rationale for adding it back doesn't address the problem. If you don't like "next to", it would be OK if you copied the conditions from Glossary of chess#En passant. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett see wikt:horizontal, wikt:vertical, wikt:row and wikt:column Kaotao (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous in contect context chess. We s/ return to "adjacent rank file" as best. --IHTS (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC) --IHTS (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC) --IHTS (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ihardlythinkso Contect chess? I looked up contact chess and got the chess.com contact page.Kaotao (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to look up the meaning of "horizontal". When I put a chess board on the table in front of me, the whole bleepin' board is horizontal. Rows are horizontal, columns are horizontal. How complicated is that? Obviously I can't use "horizontal" to specify one direction or another of piece motion. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ranks are explicitly described as rows, and rows are horizontal. Files are explicitly described as columns, and columns are vertical. Ranks and files are not dependent on viewing angle. Readers with your knowledge that physical objects can be spun will still understand that passage. This is no more ambiguous than any of the mentions of "attacking" pieces in the article, which wasn't even defined until yesterday. Do as you please if you must, i won't revert. Kaotao (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I see that we are also using "horizontal" and "vertical" to describe the knight's move. I am not sure how to improve on that, but I will still replace "horizontally adjacent" with the language used in the glossary. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter for the knight even if those terms are supposedly ambiguous, because the knight covers all possible combinations. Maybe "2 squares orthogonally, then one square in a perpendicular direction" would be more succinct. I think I remember liking a definition used in Fairy chess piece. Kaotao (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pesky issue in describing the king

[edit]

Hard pinned pieces aren't said to control squares (I think). However, enemy kings are still unable to move to the squares they would be controlling were they not pinned. This is a bit annoying, since it's awkward to mention this before pins are mentioned, and a bit reductive to leave it out as well. Kaotao (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point. Taking on the goal of serial logical presentation (ala a beginner chessbook) creates the dilemma, of course, when typically articles use wlinks as a convenient (or lazy?) "out" of said dilemma.

Current:
The king moves one square in any direction. There is also a special move called castling which moves the king and a rook. The king is the most valuable piece—it is illegal for players to put their king on a square controlled by their opponent, and all moves that attack the king must be parried immediately; if this cannot be done, the game is lost. (See § Check and checkmate.)

What about?:
The king moves one square in any direction. There is also a special move called castling which moves the king and a rook. The king is the most valuable piece—it is illegal to move the king to a square in the line of movement of any enemy piece, and a move that attacks the king must be parried at once; if this cannot be done, the game is lost. (See § Check and checkmate.)

--IHTS (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Line of movement isn't used anywhere in the article, so it might be a bit ambiguous. Maybe we can fit a small explanation of pins into that paragraph, like so:
The king moves one square in any direction. There is also a special move called castling which moves the king and a rook. The king must be guarded at all costs—it is illegal for players to play any move that would put their king on a square controlled by their opponent. As a consequence of this, pieces blocking enemy pieces from attacking their king may not be moved, though the enemy king may still not move to the squares they would otherwise control. All moves that attack the king must be parried immediately; if this cannot be done, the game is lost. (See § Check and checkmate.)
This solution feels a bit like replacing one problem with another, though. I'll leave the decision making on this up to you. Kaotao (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. And it's better instead of implying or being indirect, we give exacting/explicit description of this small but important rules element. Need to cogitate more. --IHTS (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harvtxt

[edit]

May I implement it, such that our shortened references look the same? [1] Kaotao (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hooper & Whyld (1992), p.15

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2025

[edit]

All of a sudden the padlock is missing. can someone add it please. 50.100.179.244 (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It looks like it was removed with this edit with no explanation. The article was still protected even without the padlock, but nevertheless, I readded the template for clarity. cyberdog958Talk 09:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For putting problems and puzzles under an analysis header

[edit]

Problems and puzzles are both presented solely for the purpose of being analyzed. The analysis section I wrote may have been lopsided, but I still feel it makes sense to categorize them both under "analysis" even if the top level section is a stub. @MaxBrowne2 Kaotao (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about combining the Puzzles and Problems sections into one section, called Puzzles and Problems? Each by itself is not really heavyweight enough to be a top-level section. Also, I am chafing because endgame studies are being included in the "Problems" section. "Everybody knows" they aren't the same thing. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They used to be bundled together until today; I think they ought to be regardless of how we do it. Thoughts on a top level section encompassing scrutiny of games/positions outside of play? It's what I intended for the analysis section to be, but I suppose the term analysis is semi-reserved for a more narrow usage. Studies could be moved out into it. Kaotao (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis is what GM's write when they're annotating a game. This has nothing to do with the world of problem composition. And I do think composed positions and positions from games are different "things" and not really related to each other. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree puzzles and problems being different. Perhaps the reason Bruce suggests can be safely included in combined sec Puzzles and problems is due to the fact both are reducable to: "Solve this!" (An WP:OR observation? Yeah. But the gravitation re that commonality is as strong as a black hole.) --IHTS (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ihardlythinkso Yes, they're different, which is why they should inhabit different subsections, as Max correctly decided, but different sections? I think that "examination of position/game/sequence outside of play" is sufficiently broad to encompass them, and it facillitates more expansion. Kaotao (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's odd to put analysis (e.g. the classic My 60 Memorable Games) together with/under the same heading as composition. Grouping/tying them together based on observation they both involve analysis and are both outside of gameplay, is pure/practically the definition of WP:OR. --IHTS (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the whole article has taken a wrong turn, starting with this ill thought out edit. I vote we restore that section to how it was before. "Puzzles" aren't really all that notable except maybe as a passing mention. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What has changed in the last 60 years is that puzzles are everywhere. It used to be that I'd open my chess magazine, check out the puzzle column, and that would be it for the month. Now I can't start Facebook without getting more puzzles, not to mention TWIC, chess.com, et cetera. But for this phenomenon to be represented in Wikipedia, we need to find a WP:RS that describes it. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Spot the combinations" was a traditional column in most chess magazines, newspaper columns would typically feature them too, and there were a lot of "it's your move" type books. What I object to is associating tactical positions from games closely with problems and endgame studies, which are a completely separate field. I suppose their growth in popularity can be attributed to the fact that the format works well on the internet. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxBrowne2 Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're not notable. Puzzles are on the front page of both Chess.com and Lichess; worth a small paragraph at least. Kaotao (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Composition sec was good & intact. Composition/problems is a big deal (multi pages in OCC for entries problem + problem history + orthodox problem [OCC notes that FIDE decided to included helpmates as orthodox] + study). Fairy/heterodox problems is a separate big deal. At this point am in agreement puzzles are a different animal and s/b sec-excluded. --IHTS (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ihardlythinkso It's not the vocabulary I'm adamant about, but the general idea and its potential. "Problems and puzzles" or "Non-competitive" or "Outside of play" or anything else would be fine. Anything would be better than two sections for problems and puzzles. Kaotao (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the word choice but the misguided idea re combining game analysis w/ compositions. Max's pref is to elim separate sec for puzzles, which satisifes your condition to not have two secs. --IHTS (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ihardlythinkso How's the current arrangement? Kaotao (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still hold to the view that it was fine until you tried to "fix" a problem that wasn't a problem. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxBrowne2 If we're going to include puzzles (which we should), then it makes perfect intuitive sense for them to be bundled together, since this is a top-level article, within which section names include "History" and "Rules". If we can describe analysis under the same section, even better. Kaotao (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Conflating tactical puzzles with precomposed artistic problems and endgame studies was misguided to begin with. Instead, put the description of chess puzzles as a sub-header to "tactics", with text along the lines of "Chess puzzles are a common feature of chess magazines, chess columns and chess websites. These are usually positions taken from actual games in which the reader is asked to find a combination, usually leading to mate or decisive advantage". (Refine that text as you see fit). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Tactics" is a subsection of "Gameplay". Its sole purpose should be describing tactics themselves. I don't see how putting problems and puzzles under the banner of "Outside of play" is in any way conflating them beyond what's due. Problems, puzzles, and analysis can all accurately be grouped under "chess outside of a game setting". This is a top-level article; sections should be general when possible. Kaotao (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Puzzles already do get a brief mention and even a citation in the "tactics" section. We can expand on that if desired. I really don't like this "outside of play" super-heading, it's not intuitive, it's not a term used in chess literature and it creates an artificial distinction. It also does not reflect consensus, since it seems only one editor thinks it's a good idea. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaxBrowne2 I think that (define rules of the game) -> (define and describe direct consequences of the rules and knowledge thereof) -> (define and describe direct applications of and for that knowledge) is the most sensible way of organizing the article. I don't see how this is any less intuitive than the grouping of math and psychology under "connections to other fields".
    There's much more overlap. Directmates are puzzles, and studies are presented and approached in the same way as puzzles. Both involve special positions arising from the nature of the game, which are presented to be explored. Bundling them together is the most sensible option, much better than describing puzzles in an off-topic segment in "gameplay" or omitting them. Kaotao (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's confusing/counterintuitive to imply analysis is "outside of play". And that phrase as a sechead, per Max, introduces an alien and therefore also confusing chess term/phrase/category concept. --IHTS (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ihardlythinkso What a game of chess is, and, by extension, that one could be in a game of chess or outside a game of chess is something made clear by that point. Analysis isn't even mentioned atm, but if it were, its narrow definition would be made clear. Sec heads in top-level articles are frequently broad, general categorizations. Kaotao (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Analysis" is performed both by annotators, and by the players in their heads during the game. "Outside of play" is a useless, contrived and unintuitive heading not used by any chess publication, and there is a clear consensus against its use in the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

e4 and d4

[edit]

@Kaotao: You were going to try to find sources for this paragraph:

While there are too many possible variations for later parts of the game to be played entirely by rote, chess players typically memorize and play well-documented sequences of opening moves. The most common starting moves for White are e4, usually leading to sharp, open positions, and d4, usually leading to closed positions requiring positional play; Black has multiple viable responses to both, including moves that contest the center and moves that concede it.

But how can this paragraph be useful in this article anyway? When Wikipedia readers come here, is this what they are looking for? This is way deep in chess theory, though as an apparently experienced player you may have forgotten how much chess knowledge is required even to understand the jargon in this paragraph. Although I am sure that even experienced players read this article, I think the premise of Wikipedia (as with any encyclopedia) is that the great majority of readers are starting from zero knowledge of the topic. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett I think most of the jargon like "sharp" and "variation" should be explained earlier, such as in the strategy section, which is currently a bit specific and does not cover key concepts. I'll get to work on that. I think the two most common opening moves and the contrast between them is something that ought to be conveyed as part of a basic overview of the game. Kaotao (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree about that. I started out with 1.e4 and didn't start learning or playing 1.d4 for maybe 7 years (when I was class B). As for the difference between them, I still don't know the answer to that; it depends very much on how the game goes.
I remember thumbing through "Chess for Dummies" many years ago, and being shocked that it didn't even teach notation until something like chapter 17. I asked the author about that, and he said that (1) his publisher had insisted, and (2) the book was a best-seller (perhaps the best-selling chess book ever), so the publisher knew what they were doing. So I am very interested in keeping the level of chess skill we teach in this article to a minimum. I wouldn't object to a separate article that teaches basic strategic concepts, if we don't already have one. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruce leverett I'm not trying to teach chess skill. I'm trying to provide a general overview of the game of chess. Our goal shouldn't be to create an article that readers think highly of; it should be to create an article they think nothing of, and with good reason. People with no knowledge of chess shouldn't notice startling omissions for a broad summary, and there should be no unwarranted omissions they wouldn't notice either. Not mentioning the most common ways of starting the game even in a passing mention is, I believe, in the former category; definitely something non-players would notice and be irked by, and rightfully so.
The fact that you happen to have played mostly e4 and d4 is a case in point for their inclusion. 81% of the games in Lichess' OTB master game database were either e4 or d4, and 84% of their mostly patzer online games. I'm sure there are more reliable sources that have come to similar conclusions. As for their nature, yes, d4 can lead to sharp and open positions, and e4 closed and positional ones, but it's well documented that it's usually the other way around and people usually play them with that in mind; "usually" is the term used in the article. In fact, later parts of the article already make the same point with insufficient context; look at how the subsection for Romantic chess remarks that:

...with aesthetics and tactical beauty being held in higher regard than objective soundness and strategic planning. As a result, virtually all games began with the Open Game...

The Open Game is technically defined by a Black response, but it's one of the two most popular Black responses to e4; alongside c5, also known for usually producing sharp positions. I'd assume that the chess book you brought up mentioned e4 and d4, multiple times maybe, before it mentioned notation, which is alloted an entire top-level section in this article. Kaotao (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought the 1.e4 = "sharp", 1.d4 = "positional" thing was nonsense. Whichever move you play you'll only get a "sharp" game or a "positional" game if your opponent wants one too. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxBrowne2 Perhaps we could elaborate more deeply on how opening choices impact the game. Last I checked, the "Gameplay" section was around 15 kb, compared to the "History" section with 47 kb; considering that the "Gameplay" section summarizes six articles, when "History" only summarizes one, I think that we can afford to allot additional weight to it, at least 30 kb worth. Kaotao (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet Chess

[edit]

Bullet Chess is a popular chess game in where the opponent only has 3 to 1 minutes to finish Early Learner (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet chess is already mentioned in the "Time control" subsection of the "Rules" section. Kaotao (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colors of chessboards

[edit]

The two citations just added for the text about colors of chessboards are not good. The source cited for vinyl chessboards is an article about how to make a wooden chessboard. The source cited for wooden chessboards is the sales website for chesshouse.com; WP:LINKSPAM.

I don't think that we are going to find better sources. Instead, we should just remove the sentence about colors. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have "The Modern Chess Primer" by Rev. E. E. Cunnington (1899), which says chessboards should by preference have white and brown squares. Is this citeable? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Capablanca wrote in A Primer of Chess (1935), "It is advisable to play on a board with buff and black squares or buff and green squares." But actually I don't know if we need to say more about the board in this article than light and dark squares. There's more at chessboard which seemed accurate to me in a very quick scan but which is mostly uncited. Quale (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Strategy game classification

[edit]

Would it not be classified as a role-playing game due to the usage of specific characters? PaCa11 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2025

[edit]

Pawns can move backwards to kill once. 124.148.182.79 (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but this is just trolling. Don't waste any time on this sort of nonsense. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]