Talk:Princess (chess)

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

A better Title for this article?

[edit]

I have found that most variant chess games using a B+N compound call it the archbishop or cardinal. After some searching, I could only find one variant chess game (introduced in 1978 and now seems to be obscure) where it was called princess. I would prefer to see this article titled "Archbishop" based on modern usage. But I'll leave it for now based on scholarly argument that Princess may be used by chess game problemists. I did update the opening paragraph to explain the discrepancy between common usage and this article's title. (This same topic came up for the article "Empress", with more common names "chancellor" and "marshall" suggested as the title. See discussion there).LithiumFlash (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong in the "History and nomenclature" section

[edit]

What and where the [alleged] 'error' is

[edit]

As of the last time I checked -- (using [what was then] the Latest revision as of 03:14, 8 May 2025 version of this ["Princess (chess)"] article) -- it seemed that [the first half of] this sentence:

Both of these names refer to higher ranks than the bishop in the Roman Catholic Church, but archbishop is more obvious to most people and thus became more popular.

was wrong. That sentence is the third sentence of the second paragraph of the "History and nomenclature" section ("Princess (chess)#History and nomenclature").

[What I am calling] "The first half" of that sentence starts at the beginning of the sentence, and ends with the comma just before the word "but".

By paying attention to the two sentences before the above "<block quoted>" sentence, it should become clear that the phrase "Both of these names" means

  1. The name "archbishop" (archbishop) (also called "Princess (chess)") and
  2. The name "chancellor" (chancellor) (also called "Empress (chess)").

How are those names used in "Capablanca chess"?

[edit]

This quote is from (the 'lede' section of the "latest version" revision, of) the article about "Capablanca chess":

Is it true that both names "refer to higher ranks than the bishop"?

[edit]

I don't think so. (It seems true for "archbishop", but not for "chancellor".)

First, note that the word "ranks" (e.g., in the full sentence that is "<block quoted>" above) is not a chess term. As mentioned in that sentence, it is a word that has a certain meaning within "the Roman Catholic Church".

Rather than taking my word for it, please refer to e.g. the "Order of precedence in general" sub-section of the "Order of precedence" section in the Wikipedia article about "Order of precedence in the Catholic Church". It can be found at "Order of precedence in the Catholic Church#Order of precedence in general".) That entire sub-section seems to be dedicated to defining what it means, *** in the Roman Catholic Church" ***, for one [rank] name to "refer to a higher rank than" the name of some other rank.

In the case of

that name does refer to a higher rank than the bishop in the Roman Catholic Church.

On the other hand,

does not appear at all in the elaborate chart or "outline" shown at "Order of precedence in the Catholic Church#Order of precedence in general" [mentioned above], which lists the names of many of the ranks in the "Roman Catholic Church", and clearly indicates which of those ranks are "higher" than others.

An "edit" should probably be done

[edit]

Therefore, that sentence (the one that is "block quoted" above) should probably be changed, since it is not [100%] true. It may be partially true, but (in that case) the part that is true could be kept when that sentence is changed.

Thanks for listening. *** Any comments? *** Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 December 2025

[edit]

Princess (chess) → Archbishop (chess)Archbishop (chess) – Many sources online more commonly refer to this chess piece as the Archbishop than the Princess. Even the page for fairy chess pieces refers to this piece as Archbishop more times than Princess, with Archbishop being mentioned 6 times, and Princess being mentioned 4 times. Romeo v. Juliet (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Without expressing an opinion one way or the other, the relative frequency of mention on a wikipedia page can be discounted, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC) There are two distinct topics which involve unorthodox pieces. One is chess variants, whether traditional local/national games like xiangqi, or modern invented games like Grand Chess. The other is Fairy Chess, which is a branch of chess composition involving alterations to the rules of chess, including (but not limited to) the use of unorthodox pieces. There is some overlap in that some of the pieces used will have the same powers, but they may be known by different names. Overall, I am more inclined to use the name that has traditionally appeared in chess literature, rather than an internet search. This is what I call "internetism", a form of WP:RECENTISM whereby older print sources are disregarded in favour of a crude google search, youtube videos, chess.com blog posts etc. (Chess.com is not an authority on chess by the way, far from it). Anyway T. R. Dawson was using the name "Princess" in the 1920s, and was probably the originator of the name, so this is what I'd be inclined to use. So Oppose. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC) Note also that the name "Archbishop" is potentially confusing, as there is another fairy chess piece called the Archbishop, which moves like a bishop but can "bounce" off the edges of the board like a billiard ball, i.e. an archbishop on c1 can move to b4, c5, d6, e7, f8, g7. The bishop/knight combo piece is only really called the "Archbishop" in Capablanca chess, and this being the case I don't think this name should be given preference over the problemists' name. After all how many people even play Capablanca chess? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
neutral. No reliable source offered to support the move. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, on initial scouting through web use. Archbishop appears more standard. “Princess” mentions “archbishop” but not vice versa. The standard notation “A” implies Archbishop, not Princess. I haven’t accessed books, and the sources are not high standard, but they reflect usage, I guess. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis, what RS, is 'A' "standard notation"? --IHTS (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t that what the article says?
When you have record moves, how is the Princess/Archbishop recorded? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article doesn't say that. It just says letter A is used for this article. --IHTS (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you mean "princess mentions archbishop but not vice versa"? There is no WP article Archbishop. --IHTS (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I think he means, is that instances where the piece is referred to as Princess would also mention that it is also known as Archbishop, but in instances where it is referred to as Archbishop, it (usually) does not mention that it is also known as Princess. Romeo v. Juliet (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where? In WP articles? He seems to think the WP article(s) can be RS. And even then he's wrong, the Capablanca chess article uses archbishop, and says it's also called princess. Anyway, it's not a valid argument. Or, it's an argument to keep existing title, since, for example, proprietary games like Freeling's Grand Chess, which uses name cardinal, is only interested in broadcasting its own name, its not an education vehicle to teach us princess is the orig/technical name. --IHTS (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think he might be referring to web results. However, I do agree that we should take WP:RS into consideration. Romeo v. Juliet (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have access to the books, and have not been able to find accessible reliable sources on this topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If no Wikipedians currently have access to The Oxford Companion to Chess, perhaps we should just AfD this and all other chess-related articles as non-notable?
No, seriously, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess shows recent activity.
But the article currently quotes that reference as saying princess, an unorthodox piece that combines the powers of the bishop and knight. That's a reliable source, isn't it? So I will !vote acordingly. Andrewa (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that this article was at Archbishop (chess) before an undiscussed move in 2014. 162 etc. (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there was a discussion, 1 July thru 12 July 2014, just not here. --IHTS (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion was on your user talk page, I gather? That discussion probably makes no difference here. Unless there was a clear link from an appropriate forum to that discussion on your user talk page, then in the context of the Wikipedia polity it's still an undiscussed move. Andrewa (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes (on my user Talk). No, it can have value by adding to the current discussion, if people care to read it. --IHTS (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that does not make it a discussed move in terms of Wikipedia processes. So 162 etc. is correct in calling it an undiscussed move in 2014. Andrewa (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Never asserted it had policy significance, so, agree w/ you. Re "undiscussed", I interpreted that in the broad sense, not WP-policy sense. So felt better to post what I did, rather than not posting, ok?) --IHTS (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this edit appears to be contradicting the description an undiscussed move in 2014. It appears that this opinion of yours was contrary to Wikipedia policy, and that you either didn't know that or didn't care or both. I'm sorry of that is harsh, but if you are going to knowingly base your arguments in a broad sense rather than WP-policy sense, I think that this at least borders on disruption, which page says in part Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they were not aware of policies and guidelines. It doesn't say or don't care what the policy says but I think that is implied. In seeking consensus, which is the goal of all talk page discussions, we need to respect and base our discussions on existing policy, which is an expression of established consensus. Consensus can change but that is no reason to ignore policy, just the opposite, see wp:creed#rules. Andrewa (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are carrying this out way too far. Read my above posts. I never wrote, implied, or even thought that the post of my User Talk discussion had implicit WP policy significance. As already stated above, I posted as potential additional thoughts on the topic, if people care to read it. And I explained how I interpreted "undiscussed" broadly, making note there was discussion elsewhere, and again, not claiminng or implying any WP policy significance. You are making baseless accusations, please stop. --IHTS (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the one carrying it too far, and always were. You were wrong to correct the statement that the move of 2014 was undiscussed. As Wikipedia uses the term, it was indeed undiscussed. That is my only accusation, and you don't like it, but it is accurate, and it would be wrong to allow you to mislead others on this matter. You are now accusing me of making baseless accusations. This is itself a baseless accusation. Please, if you reply to this, don't make any fresh accusations. But feel free to summarise your position, and provided that you make no fresh accusations which I have not already answered, you may have the last word here. Andrewa (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article already includes a valid citation of The Oxford Companion to Chess as saying ... princess, an unorthodox piece that combines the powers of the bishop and knight... . I missed that before. On the other hand we have as yet no RS to support the move, just a bland claim that Many sources online more commonly refer to this chess piece as the Archbishop than the Princess. We need this to be backed up by specific examples, otherwise there is no case for a move. Andrewa (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]