Talk:Sample chess game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

i added this to Wikipedia:Brilliant prose. Kingturtle 18:09 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Notation for mate

Mightn't it be wiser to use # for mate (and not ++)?

Use "#". It's what PGN uses. -- Dwheeler 18:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two notations: which is better?

(Should we use "x" or "times" when taking a piece?)

Rxh5++
R×h5++

Michael Hardy 03:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd just use "x". I don't think many people can tell the difference. -- Dwheeler 18:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Coordinates

Excellent page! What's missing are coordinates on the images, so the lay reader knows where e7 is. Or could that be done by colour-coding, as in "the queen could now move to the red square"? Thore 12:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the page. Please feel free to take it in whatever direction seems appropriate. I agree that the images should have coordinates, but I added the images way back when it was still a novelty to have images at all. Doesn't Wikipedia now have a script for encoding chess positions in a way that folks can modify them? I've quite fallen out of touch of late, not editing anything but Arimaa, so I'd be happy if someone else brought this old article up to date. Thanks --Fritzlein 17:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Done. I've changed this over to the new "Chess diagram" template. Chess diagram appears to be the new standard for chess diagrams on Wikipedia. And it so happens that "chess diagram" shows the coordinates. Chess diagram also displays better on some systems; on my system, the old "chess position" has garbage lines between the rows, and Chess Diagram displays correctly. -- Dwheeler 18:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

This is really an excellent page on chess! Aimed at begginers, it really seems to get it as right as possible!

Shouldn't we name it for «featured article»? Do you know how to do it? Velho 23:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Done! See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sample chess game. --ZeroOne 13:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
While I don't think this is right for a featured article, I would argue that this page merits its place in Wikipedia. I thought I would copy my argument to that effect here, so it doesn't disappear along with the featured article nomination... DanielCristofani 09:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Some paper encyclopedias have full pages which are not mostly text: maps, or diagrams of the legislative process, or little picture galleries with examples of eight different kinds of lace, or whatever. In the more vertical (and more nonlinear) format of a web browser it makes sense to put things like this on their own pages, rather than break up the main text column with them (and they won't necessarily fit to the side of it). So not every Wikipedia page has to be exactly an "article". The page Sample chess game does not belong on Wikibooks because it is not a textbook or part of a textbook. Rather, it is a supplementary document for the encyclopedia articles Chess and Rules of chess. Such supplementary documents should probably never be given featured article status, since they are not encyclopedia articles per se (thus I oppose this nomination), but there is no good reason to delete them, or to transwiki them to other Wiki projects whose stated criteria they are equally unsuitable for, either. (If anyone wants to get gung-ho about every Wikipedia page being an article per se, rather than some pages serving subsidiary functions, they will have to delete or transwiki all "List of" and "Timeline of" pages, to begin with.) DanielCristofani 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10%

"White wins 10% more often than Black" would mean "White wins 110% as often as black", whereas it's more like 137%. (Compare with "New Zombinex has 30% more saturated fat than the competition.") Similarly, "white's advantage over black is 10%" gives the same wrong impression plus additional confusion over how ties are figured in. I think my new phrasing makes it clear, but if you can think of another phrasing that also makes it clear, feel free. Also, this is one figure that would be good to cite...DanielCristofani 08:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your edit makes it more accurate without making it unreadable. Sadly, for true accuracy we would have to define expected score and say "White's expected score is 0.55". --Fritzlein 21:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6.... d5

"This move is necessary, since 6...Kg6? 7.Qf5+ Kh6 8.d4+ g5 9.h4! would leave White with a crushing attack." Let's say I'm confused by d4+. 70.129.156.206 04:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a "discovered check"; after that move, Black is in check from the bishop on c1, which the d-pawn was blocking before. Does that clear it up? DanielCristofani 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7. Bxd5x mistype?

Excerpt from article: 7. Bxd5+ White gives check yet again, keeping Black on the run. Let's review the three ways to get out of check: Capture the piece giving check. Black could play 7...Qxd5. But White would simply take the queen with 8.Qxd5+, giving White a huge material disadvantage, as well as a continuing attack on Black's exposed king.

I may be mistaken, but I believe the author means that the bold type disadvantage remarked above would actually be a material advantage for White, which is why the third listed move is the best move available.

-David Williams

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/m/Talk%7ESample_chess_game_14c6.html"