Talk:Checkmate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Checkmate article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Chess Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.
Peer review Checkmate has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] need help

HELP!!! I added ==Basic checkmates==, but I don't know how to get the position diagrams in the proper place, relative to the text that refers to them. I altered a chess template from another page, and I don't know how to move them relative to the text.

I plan to add the procedure for forcing these checkmates sometime, unless someone else wants to do it.

I removed the "float" attributes that seemed to be the source of the problem. Is that right now? - RedWordSmith 02:31, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
That looks right! Thanks. I couldn't find any documentation on how to use the chess diagram template, so I copied someone else's diagram.

[edit] tip the king

The article says "Traditionally, when checkmate occurs (or is thought to be inevitable) one lays one's king down on its side to indicate that the game has ended (by resigning the game)."

As far as I know, tipping over the king shows resignation, but not checkmate. If so, I also disagree with the picture of checkmate showing the king tipped over.--Bubba73 14:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Nowhere does it say that tipping the king is limited to checkmate. Yes, one can tip the king when one is resigning, or when there is a checkmate. A tipped king is pretty much the universal symbol for a lost chess game (checkmate or otherwise). Also, please sign your posts. Alight 11:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I asked some other knowledgable people, and they say that it isn't normal to tip the king over after checkmate. When checkmate occurs, the game is over and there's no need to resign. They said that it was like saying "I quit" right after being fired. I don't care enough about it to change it, but I do think it is meaningless. --Bubba73 01:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Bubba73. At his suggestion (on my talk page), I tried rewriting the king-tipping part to make it clearer. However, like him, I don't really think king-tipping has much to do with checkmate. First, a player does not have to (and in my experience does not) tip over the king after being checkmated. The game is over, so it is not necessary to tip the king to acknowledge defeat (as Bubba73's friends said, it's like saying "I quit" after being fired). Second, one normally tips one's king to indicate resignation, but even this doesn't necessarily occur when checkmate is imminent -- it may be many moves away, although ultimately inevitable. So IMO the whole king-tipping discussion and the photograph of the tipped-over checkmated king should go. Krakatoa 01:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I agreee. The photo could be replaced with a diagram (which I could do if no one else wants to). Bubba73 01:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • So, you think this photo should go? I have an idea, show the photo to 100 people and ask them what one word comes to mind (besides "chess"). I'd venture that 95% of them will say "checkmate." The photo is meant to be a conceptual illustration of a checkmate, not a literal description of the mechanics of a chess game. This article has plenty of other diagrams, replacing the photo with yet another one would be pointless. Alight 01:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, I think the photo should be changed. It doesn't say "checkmate" to me, it makes me wonder why the king is tipped over. If anything, the king on its side in the photo designates resignation, not checkmate. It is pointless to resign after being checkmated. If you don't want to replace it with a diagram, then it should be replaced with a proper photograph. Bubba73 01:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with Bubba. The king-tipping is completely extraneous and has nothing to do with the fact that the king is checkmated. And I think if you asked 100 serious chessplayers (say, players serious enough to have USCF or other ratings), "What does it mean when a player tips over his king?" the vast majority would say, "It means he's resigning." It's a nice photograph, but someone should replace it with one of a checkmated, but still upright, king. Krakatoa 02:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I did a Google search and found a discussion of the issue at a chess forum. You can look at the responses for yourself. Everyone seems to be in agreement with the position Bubba and I are espousing: you tip over the king to signify resignation, not when you're checkmated. Krakatoa 02:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I think you guys are missing my point. Ask 100 people, not "serious" chess players what single word that photo evokes. "Evokes" is the operative word here. The photo is meant to be evocative of a concept, not a literal illustration. It's kind of like showing a photo of people lined up at a polling place to evoke the concept of "democracy." You could say, that polling places are not limited to democracys, and would be correct, but that does not diminish the ability of the photo to illustrate a concept.Alight 12:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
            • I hate to pile on, but... The problem with the photo is that the situation is depicts is not typical in chess play. It isn't the way that real chess players behave, and that makes it inaccurate and deceptive. This is especially true for any readers who are not serious chess players as they have know way to know this, and they are depending on the accuracy of this article to learn about chess. To serious chess players the photo just looks weird, but at least they won't be fooled into thinking that it depicts anything that happens in a real chess game. I don't care enough to replace or remove the photo, but I'm going to remove the king tipping language in the article because it belongs with resignation, not checkmate. In my limited experience, king tipping is fairly rare under any circumstance, even for resignation. Simply saying "I resign" and extending your hand for a handshake is a more common way to resign. That people not familiar with the subject matter might think an inaccurate photo depiction is typical is all the more reason to remove it from an article as in that case it's actively harmful. People lining up at polling places seems like a fine photo for democracy to me, since I've witnessed that myself. People in democracies actually do line up at polling places, so I don't see what mistaken idea about democracy such a photo would foster. Chess players don't tip their kings when they are mated, but the photo strongly suggests they do. Quale 01:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Racism shadows?

I am traslating a part of this page to spanish, I get a question. Why every checkmate are from whites to blacks?

This fact is not trivial I think.

It has two points:

  1. NPV.-Novice readers are going to think the blacks always loose, or often they loose. In chess white starts and they have a few advantage at the beginning, but every chess player knows this is not trascendental to the game result.
  2. Metaphor.-Why in an encyclopedia are we going to reflect to humanity white are best than dark?

I invite you to be more accurate to the wikipedia philosophy.

Thanks

--GengisKanhg (my talk) 19:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this was true when GengisKanhg wrote the above, but the first diagram in the article (yes, the one that I said above in "tip the king" should be eliminated) shows a White king being checkmated. Krakatoa 01:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, my problem with the diagram isn't that it shows a white king being mated, but that the king has been knocked over. If the king were upright, but the position otherwise was the same, that would be fine. Krakatoa 23:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Right. Although the photography is good, what is it trying to show? Someone said that it was meant to "evoke" something. The only think it evokes to me is the questions : Why is the king on its side? Did it get knocked over accidently? Did someone do something silly such as "resigning" after the game is over?? The article is about "checkmate" and the photo certainly doesn't evoke the idea of checkmate. Bubba73 01:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


The above is a silly point- we cannot allow racism to raise it's ugly head in this article! The color of the pieces are immaterial and do not reflect humanity. You might as well ask why do white pieces have the advantage and move first, being superior to black pieces then? The person playing white could be black if you look at it that way you might feel better about it!! dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.246.36 (talk • contribs)

It would be easy and more balanced to change the diagrams to show some white kings being mated as well. It's not racism here but "white-ism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.103.125 (talk • contribs)

I think someone is just having a bit of fun with the racism remarks. In chess literature, usually white is the superior side in example positions. Bubba73 (talk), 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shah mat

An anonymous user changed the definition of "shah mat" to "the king is ambushed," rather than "the king is dead" -- which is what I'd always heard. I found an article by Jan Newton "The King Isn't Dead After All!" addressing this point and concluding that "the king is ambushed" is the correct translation. I think I will add a link in the text to Newton's well-footnoted article, particularly since many reading that "shah mat" doesn't mean "the king is dead" will be surprised and even dubious about this claim, as I was. Krakatoa 23:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] new diagram

The new diagram added in the section Quick checkmates in the Opening is not a quick checkmate in the opening. Bubba73 20:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Bubba73 is right that the diagram doesn't belong there. I reverted to the pre-diagram version. If someone wants to put in a diagram of Légal's mate or one of the other mates in the opening, that would be fine. Krakatoa 22:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King tipping photo

For what it is worth, following up the discussion above, when I saw the photo, I, as a chess player, immediately recognised that it wasn't showing the 'normal' procedure, but I did realise it was showing the concept of the king being defeated. Tipping the king over is symbolic of being defeated. But I agree that chess players don't usually tip the king over after being checkmated. Most chess players resign before checkmate, as allowing checkmate (unless it is particularly beautiful) is something to be avoided - you want to retain the dignity of acknowledging that you realise you are defeated, rather than requiring your opponent to demonstrate it to you.

Having said that, my resignation procedures vary from the normal "stopping the clock and shaking the opponent's hand", to "tipping the king briefly, then putting him upright again, and then shaking hands", to "throwing the board and pieces on the floor in disgust"... OK, I made up that last one! My point is that there are many variants in the body language of resignation. Some people do tip the king and leave him lying on his side, but it is not very common in my experience. And when I allow someone to checkmate me, I just stop the clock and shake their hand, followed by swiftly resetting the pieces to the start position! Carcharoth 22:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone who knows what they are doing tip the king over after being checkmated. It doesn't make any sense to resign after being checkmated. Bubba73 (talk), 23:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Hopefully the new caption makes things a bit clearer. I like the photo, as it illustrates both checkmate and "tipping" the king. But ideally someone will do two new photos, illustrating the separate processes. There is no article that I can find on resignation specifically in chess - I've added the chess meaning to the article I linked to there, but the article is mainly about political resignation. Chess resignation probably doesn't need its own article, but a short section could be added to an appropriate chess article. BTW, I am a long-time, fairly competent, chess player, and would like to contribute to some of the chess articles - what needs doing round here? Carcharoth 08:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Resigination is also listed at Chess terminology, and I agree that chess resignation doesn't need its own article. One thing that needs to be done is that a lot of diagrams need to be converted to the new format. That is tedious, though. Bubba73 (talk), 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I also think the photo should be replaced; it's not a good illustration of checkmate because the reader has to mentally stand the king upright again to check that it is checkmate. I might have a go at taking a new photo, if that would be OK? 213.249.135.36 18:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Go ahead and try a better photo. I've been thinking about doing it for a long time, but haven't gotten around to it. Bubba73 (talk), 18:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see it as an artistic photo, taking liberties with reality! One resigns just before one is mated in reality so the king being upright would not be realistic also , I like the photo! The king on it's side shows just how vulnerable the king is, I don't see a beginner being put off chess by this, on the contrary it is an intriguing photo. dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.246.36 (talk • contribs)

No, if one resigns before being checkmated, you couldn't be in the position shown. This is not about an artistic statement, it is about facts. Bubba73 (talk), 02:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The photo is just plain wrong! If there is a page for chess "art" then an evocative photo like this might go there. There are many false impressions that the layman has about chess that are often portrayed in the movies for example, who might well get their "facts" from a source as this . An encyclopedia should deal with facts so that more people will know the truth and fewer mistakes are made as a result of looking up encyclopedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.103.125 (talk • contribs)

I replaced it with a better photo. Bubba73 (talk), 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding Checkmate with Check?

Basic question: can you - while your king is in checkmate - move your piece to put your opponent's king in check, ultamately forcing your opponent to move his king, and avoiding your own checkmate?

Is this legal, or illegal?

No. If your king is in checkmate, the game is over and you lose. (If your king is in check but not in checkmate, you can check the opponent's king - if that move gets you out of check.) Bubba73 (talk), 03:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Logically, if you move your piece in case your king is checked, your king would be gonna be captured and you will lose. The aim of the game is to delay your King's capture and catch your opponent's king up. Well, if a King is mate, surely he is gonna be captured and defeated.
The king is never captured. If your king is in check, the only legal moves are to get out of check. If there are no such moves, it is checkmate and the game is over. See rules of chess. Bubba73 (talk), 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, but conceptually... you can think of checkmate as representing the inevitability of loss of the king. If the game did continue until the king was captured, then you could give check from a checkmate position, but you'd still lose. The opponent wouldn't be forced to move his king; he'd take yours. I think that's the clearest way of explaining why the checkmate rules are the way they are. 213.249.135.36 18:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop and knight versus king

I see someone has added an example of how to mate with two bishops versus lone king. Someone should also add the classic example of how, in the bishop and knight versus lone king ending, one forces the king to the other corner and mates it. Starting position, e.g. White king on f6, knight on f7, bishop anywhere on diagonal from b1 to g6; Black king on g8. White wins starting with 1.Bf5 (waiting) Kf8 2.Bh7! Ke8 3.Ne5 and now (a) Kf8 4.Nd7+ Ke8 5.Ke6 or (b) Kd8 4.Ke6 Kc7 (4...Ke8 5.Nd7! Kd8 6.Kd6) 5.Nd7 Kc6 6.Bd3! and the king stays trapped. I'm sure this is in all the endgame books. Krakatoa 04:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the 2 bishops checkmate. Someone make an article for B+N, and there is a link to it. I think it is OK to have it as a seperate article, since it is a lot more involved. Bubba73 (talk), 04:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Damn, you're lightning quick, Bubba! I just looked at "bishop and knight checkmate," decided my point was stupid since the position is covered there, and was going to delete my comment -- but discovered that you'd already (more politely) told me my comment was stupid! :-) Krakatoa 04:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More fastest checkmates

Fastest checkmate (tie):
1. e4 e5
2. Qh5 Ke7??
3. Qxe5#


Fastest checkmate by a pawn:
1. e4 f6
2. d4 Kf7
3. Bf4 Ke6
4. Qh5 Nc6
5. d5#

Fastest discovered checkmate by a king:
1. f3 e5
2. Kf2 d5
3. Kg3 Ke7
4. Kh4 g6
5. g2 Ke8/Kd6#

Fastest discovered checkmate by a pawn:
1. f3 e5
2. Kf2 h5
3. Kg3 h4+
4. Kg4 d5#

Fastest discovered checkmate by a knight:
1. e4 f6
2. d4 Kf7
3. Nd2 Kd6
4. h4 Nc6
5. h5+ Kg5
6. Nc4#

Fastest discovered checkmate by a bishop:
1. h4 f6
2. g3 Kf7
3. Bh3 Kg6
4. h5+ Kh5:
5. d4 Nc6
6. Bf5#

Fastest discovered checkmate by a rook:
1. e4 f6
2. h4 Kf7
3. Rh3 Kg6
4. Rf3 Kh5
5. g3 g6
6. d4 Nc6
7. Rd3#
--82.207.191.177 18:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think these could go in the article, if they are referenced. By the way, T = rook in German. Bubba73 (talk), 19:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if they're the fastest, but I think so. I found them myself (I hope they're right). --82.207.191.209 10:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
They can't go in the article on that basis, because of WP:OR. Bubba73 (talk), 20:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Knights

The page says that a checkmate with two knights cannot be forced but it can be possible...?! Seems to be a contradiction of terms. Is checkmate possible or not? HiraV 21:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick answer: two knights can not force checkmate against a king that is trying to avoid it. There are checkmate positions, but they can't be forced if black has even one move to make. I'll try to explain more later, but also see two knights endgame. Bubba73 (talk), 00:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
To put it another way, put the two kings and two white knights anywhere on the board. If black moves first, white can not force checkmate. If white moves first, he can only checkmate is if he can do it on the first move (i.e. a one-move checkmate). Black need never get into a position where white can checkmate him. Bubba73 (talk), 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture problem

The picture is wrong.

Assume the following: black K on f8, white R on f7, white Q on e6.

If black plays ... Kg8, then he has moved out of *check*. 71.226.81.249 00:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the diagram to which you are referring. Bubba73 (talk), 00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the word... Arabic?

Checkmate seems to me to have Arabic origin. "Sheikh Mat" literally means "Sheikh (a.k.a. "King") is dead". 155.136.80.163 10:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'd heard for many years, but modern research has it a bit different, as the article says. Bubba73 (talk), 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] threatened with capture?

Normally I agree with all edits by Baccyak4H, but the phrase was changed to the king "threatened with capture", but the king is never captured. I have mixed feelings about this phrase versus the king being "under attack". What do other editors think? Bubba73 (talk), 17:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That type of wordsmithing is exactly what I attempt to do when making such copyedits, including that one... I do see your point. My rationale was to become more consistent with the end of that sentence "to meet that threat". I wanted to convey "what threat?" I missed the subtle nonsensicality of "with capture" applied to the king. (thanks for the complimentary disclaimer tho)
A phrasing in the spirit of both of us could probably be something like "when one's king is under attack and there is no way to escape that attack". That may not be perfect as is but it does have consistency between the current status and lack of resolution, both described by the word "attack", which I was striving for. And it does not have the subtlely confusing "capture" phrase either. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legall's mate with the Scotch Game?

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3 dxc3 5. Nxc3 d6 6. Bc4 Bg4 7. O-O Ne5 8. Nxe5! Bxd1?? 9. Bxf7+ Ke7 10. Nd5#

What do you think? Should I add it to the article? Guy0307 03:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Budapest mate (the first)

The Budapest Defence 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Ngxe5! 8.axb4?? Nd3# In fact is not a mate: white can answer with 9. exd3 can't he? --Giacomo Volli (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the black queen on e7 would then be checking the white king. Bubba73 (talk), 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick checkmates

Isn't this 'quick checkmates' section becoming a bit silly. Do we require a list of 101 quick checkmates? All the opening names also seems to distract from the Checkmate topic. ChessCreator (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, and I just added one. Perhaps the section should be moved to Quick checkmates in the opening or Checkmates in the opening or something. An article on opening traps might be good. Bubba73 (talk), 02:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, some other article, perhaps Chess opening traps (although true not all these mates are traps). Many existing articles referring to 'Chess opening traps' (i.e Tarrasch Trap,Noah's Ark Trap, Halosar Trap Category:Chess trapsetc) and there is nothing to bring them all together and explain what that term means. ChessCreator (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)