Talk:Chess/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Link to a diagram maker

Would anyone mind if I added a link to my (completely free) diagram creator at http://www.jinchess.com/chessboard/composer in the external links section? It's already been linked from the chess articles on he.wikipedia.org and tt.wikipedia.org (not by me).

No i wouldnt mindPubuman 03:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking but I don't think that link is appropriate for this page. 24.177.112.146 06:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone official who could decide this? Is there some kind of policy? 192.117.99.198 01:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Anyone official" - no, problems are usualy solved in a discussion, all editors have the same rights. "Policy" - yes, read please WP:LINKS. --Ioannes Pragensis 13:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Well, it looks like the "conflict of interest" clause prevents me from adding that link, so I'll leave it to someone else :-) 192.117.123.35 19:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's a nice tool. Can you modify it to output valid Forsyth-Edwards Notation? --ZeroOne (talk | @) 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean output? It outputs an image. If you mean input, then it already does take FEN, but not through the composer. For example: http://www.jinchess.com/chessboard/?pos=rnbq1bnr/pppppppp/8/4k3/4K3/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQ1BNR 192.117.123.155 00:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean that in addition to the image, I'd like the program to output a FEN-string. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It also takes lexigraphic format (as in the composer), and piece list: http://www.jinchess.com/chessboard/?pos=ke3,Ra6. There are also many other options not currently exposed through the composer, such as selecting board size, pattern, piece set, adding arrows, circles, image header, footer etc. http://www.jinchess.com/chessboard/?pos=rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNRR&cm=o&tt=Title&ct=Comment&a=e2e4&c=d5,f5&bp=pale-wood&ps=condal&s=l I plan to write a "pro" version of the composer to expose all these. 192.117.123.155 00:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be fine to add the link to the page, it is relavant and useful and fits all the critera

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Chess League

Not often a chess article comes up for deletion so I thought I should alert editors on here to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Chess League. TerriersFan 02:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

These are like buses, you don't see one for ages then they all come together - here's another one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa State Chess Association. TerriersFan 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

These issues (and related ones concerning Category:Chess openings articles) are being discussed on the Chess project talk page WT:CHESS. Quale 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chess as mental training

Chess as mental training was subjected to the WP:AFD process and the result of the discussion was to merge the article with Chess. See discussion. I closed the AfD, but did not complete the merge as I thought there should be some discussion here as Chess is clearly a good article and appending it should be given discussion from the perspective of quality of this article. Alan.ca 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of merge. Chess is already too long, we should rather support the summary style here (WP:SUMMARY).--Ioannes Pragensis 13:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it is 'too long.' For a game over 1,500 years old and with unparalleled complexity and considerable historical significance, how short do you think it should be?Stephen A (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Compared to several other fairly strong special topics linked-to from Chess (e.g., Origins, Rules, Notation), "mental training" is really quite thin. It seems to be but a few interesting comments about chess. To answer Ionannes' concern that "Chess is already too long, I'd say "mental" could be reduced to half its present length and merged in. The whole group of related articles would be improved. Hult041956 22:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything worth merging here. I think that chess is a pretty good article, and I agree that chess as mental training is a rather poor article. Merging that poor material here would only make this article worse for no gain. It would be better to either strengthen chess as mental training (not worth it in my opinion, but anyone who cares is welcome to do it), find a different place to merge it (maybe a new page on youth chess), or delete it (I wouldn't complain). Quale 03:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Would agree that chess as mental training is a poor article at present and merging it here makes little sense. ChessCreator (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chess Template

Ok,im here to discuss about the template,i aded it a few days ago but my edit wass reverted arguing that the template lacks visual appeal and that the article already linked to the topics the template covers.I also found that it wass already aded some time back ago and it seems to have reached a good concesus but again wass reverted by the same editor here.

In my opinion the template is usefull,because even when the article links to the topics it covers,the template allows the reader when he reaches the bottom of the page,to spare having to go back up to find the main link for the topic he is looking.

v • d • e Chess

Origins · Rules · Openings · Strategy · Tactics · Endgame · Championship · Variants

Please give your comment about the usefullnes of the template so we can spare ourself an edit war,should it be aded or not?--Andres rojas22 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty bland. It should at least have some sort of chess icon or something. —ptk✰fgs 03:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And it is pretty poor and - as one editor pointed out some time ago - pretty subjective: why just these links and not others?--Ioannes Pragensis 06:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Playing time

I have never seen such confusing advice. In the info box it says:

10–60 minutes; tournament games last up to 7 hours*

Games by correspondence may last many months, while blitz chess games are even shorter than 10 minutes

Where does 10-60 minutes come from? On the Internet by far the greatest number of games are less than 10 minutes and I play in three, across the board, leagues all of which have a maximum playing time of 3 hours (1.5 hours per player). I think the straightforward solution is to say Variable and leave it at that since any other formulation is open to debate and the present wording is, frankly, meaningless. TerriersFan 00:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As usual in board games, 10-60 min relates primarily to average casual games without time control. If you use a time control, on Internet or otherwise, then the time of the game is predetermined mainly by the clock, of course. Seven hours for a game corresponds with another popular setting 2 hours for the first 40 moves and 1,5 h. for the rest (I often play my games using it), which is AFAIK the slowest routinely used setting in today's OTB tournaments.

Regarding your advice to use "Variable": I agree that it is the most exact way, but I am still against it because it is at the same time the less informative way. The reader expects information and not empty "weasel words".--Ioannes Pragensis 05:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Catagory suggestion:

I would like to suggest that a new catagory for movies based on chess be put as well as chess in (limited) popular culture (Books, Movies, TV Shows). While the catagory may not be extensive, it might help someone find something that a chess aficionado would appreciate. --Hourick 05:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How about Category:Films_about_chess, Voorlandt 13:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] to much instructions

I think there is too much here that is about how to play chess. shouldn't this page be about the game and its history and have a seperate page about how to play chess?

I disagree. This article is the main article on chess, and should therefore give an overview of all aspects of the game. That includes an overview of the rules, history, elemental strategy, organization, and recent developments. Without some information on each of these aspects, the article would be missing a crucial aspect of great importance. A general overview article about chess cannot be complete without information about what the object of the game is. The details however, are too many to put into this article, and are therefore spread out over some hundred chess-related articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the main comment and disagree with Sjakkalle. I think there is an undefined but generally accepted notion of how much information one can assimilate in one page. Its similar to the notion of how much information should be on a slide in a slide show (though the amount is completely different). I would encourage relooking at some of the information and maybe streamlining/editing out portions of strategies, chess and mathematics and some more information towards the end of the page. --Urbanreform 22:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jews and Chess

Take a look at my reverts of Unfreeride's edits. I think there's clearly synthesis going on here. There's a citation of a 1996 paper allegedly showing chess is a verbal-sequential task, but no mainstream citation to show that the 1996 paper's conclusions are widely accepted. Then there is the concluding statement "Their high verbal-sequential intelligence may explain their overrepresentation in chess", which to me is clearly synthesis. On top of all that, I don't see why Jewish overrepresentation in chess needs to be in the main "Chess" article at all. By all means make a separate article on "Jews in Chess", but I don't see why it needs to be in the main article, just like analysis of the overrepresentation of Russians, Eastern Europeans, under-40s or males doesn't need to be there. So what's the consensus? Keep, remove or modify? I say remove. Peter Ballard 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It "looks" like synthesis, but it is not (unless you read the whole thing). You didn't read the whole thing because you are too lazy to read the whole thing and you read too slow.

The 1996 paper is just extra information about chess, I know it is unrelated.

So I will remove the 1996 paper, etc. and unrelated references and keep the extraneous references.

"significance because IQ (as measured by IQ tests) is the best predictor we have of success in academic subjects and most jobs. Ashkenazi Jews are just as successful as their tested IQ would predict, and they are hugely overrepresented in occupations and fields with the highest cognitive demands. During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US Nobel science prizes and 25% of the ACM Turing awards. They account for more than half of world chess champions."

in http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5HSULtz6jVEC&oi=fnd&pg=RA2-PA1&dq=ashkenazi+jews+chess&ots=Dv2Fv2As8-&sig=CiAhutTEb6U_AI_tJ1op8_NZGZk#PPP1,M1 It links smart Jews and chess.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lSf9rZmK6L8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=jews+chess+intelligence+ashkenazi&ots=WDfchfkv5K&sig=UQXiIaOdmN0tbPUuYRLlmz9xwDU#PPP1,M1 It links Jewish verbal IQ and chess. Unfreeride 14:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Jews and Chess

People are continuously reverting my "Jews and Chess" section. People consider it racist. Wikipedia is NOT the place to revert things that personally offends you.

Unfreeride 18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not about whether it's offensive. It's because it's off-topic and factually inaccurate. Peter Ballard 11:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but when I edited the article, I hit return too early and my comment was cut short. But what I was going to say (but more briefly) is that singling out Jewish excellence at chess is off topic. If you're going to do that you also need to discuss dominence by Soviets, Eastern Europeans, under-40s and males. It's just too much for a general article on chess. Peter Ballard 12:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget literate people and people who aren't blind and/or quadrapalegic. SharkD (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chess diagrams not working

Only a few pieces show up on the diagrams and most of the empty tiles show up as text like "e5" instead of a blank picture. I am using firefox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.244.183 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a problem with your computer, this is a general problem with Wikipedia that has appeared yesterday and shall last as long as 5 days. Sorry for the inconvenience. SyG 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Chance

Under random chance, I wonder if "none" is really accurate. There is always a determination of who plays white and who plays black and this is usually made randomly. This may sound trivial, but I bring it up because Bobby Fischer himself once commented that he believed that if chess was ever completely understood by both players the winner would be determined at the outset of the game (paraphrasing here, sorry don't have the source). 74.92.18.49 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Logan

Broadly speaking you have an interesting point. However I would contend the randomness you are discussing is more similar to that regarding (say) the pairings in a Swiss system tournament. Unless the pairing algorithm is unambiguous, you don't know who you will play next until told by a tournament official.

When it comes down to the play of your game, the actual color you have is not really material in the sense that you have knowledge of the play from both sides of the board, and will use both in your game. Who each particular set of knowledge applies to may be random, but it doesn't really impact your assessment of the game from the POV of a particular color. You will want to have at hand all of your knowledge, and you will pare the relevant knowledge down, not based on some external randomness, but by the choices of your opponent and yourself. So I would vouch for the description. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no randomness during the game - I think that is what it means. Your color may be determined randomly, but that is before the game starts. Bubba73 (talk), 01:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] move a section?

I suggest moving the section "Notation for recording moves" to later in the article. The reason is that I think that Strategy and Tactics is more important. The only drawback to moving this section is that the notation is used a little under Endgame. Comments? Bubba73 (talk), 14:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice to meet you again, Bubba73! - Im slightly against it, a notation (and the related terminuölogy) is a tool for discussions about aspects of the game. Best,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram of zugswang under Endgame

I'm wondering if the diagram of zugzwang in the Endgame section should be removed. The reader of this article probably doesn't need to go into detail about zugzwang. On the other hand, it does show an endgame position. Bubba73 (talk), 14:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not remove it - this is not about details, but about the very definition of zugzwang, and zugzwang is what many endgames are about.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Chess

Unlike the history of a country that contributes greatly to its culture, the history of chess is not as important for chess. I feel most of the history section should be moved to its own article. This article should be focused on what chess represents today, i.e. the rules, famous tournaments, strategy. I think the Strategy and Tactics should be the first section because it embodies what chess is. Lyctc (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an article on the History of Chess could be an article by itself. But there is the article Origins of chess, which seems to go beyond just the origins and cover up to modern times. Perhaps that article should be renamed "history of chess" and most of the history moved over there. Just a thought. Bubba73 (talk), 02:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a better idea. The history of chess just doesn't seem too important in relation to what chess represents. Lyctc (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, I think that "chess in culture" should be moved to near the bottom. Bubba73 (talk), 02:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the history of chess contributes greatly to its current culture; it is similar like a country. Where we were today without Fischer, Alekhine, Steinitz, Morphy, Philidor? There are hundreds of games, but chess is distinctive thanks to its history.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I think that history and especially "in culture" should be moved to near the end of the article. Put yourself in the position of someone coming to read the article. They are much more likely to be interested in reading about how the pieces move, strategy, and tactics than about the history and the place in culture. Bubba73 (talk), 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the practical view. On the other side, the logical place of history in similar articles is near to top. I am not sure what should be stonger here... BTW I shortened the history a bit and expanded rules. (FAR).--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Initial piece positions

Great article guys! But why there is no pictures of the initial positions of chess pieces. It is a fundamental piece of information in the article that is missing. CG (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a photograph. I just added a diagram showing the initial position. Bubba73 (talk), 18:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but it made the lead part of the article very messy. I placed the portal link to the end like in most articles, and removed the chess pieces template. I like it but, it doesn't fit in the article unless you make it horizontal or you remove the photograph. CG (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

First I added the diagram and listed each piece in the caption, so someone not familiar with the symbols of the pieces could tell which was which. Then I thought about the chess piece template, which shows the symbol of each piece along with the name. I thought that would be a better way to tell the reader what each symbol was, and I was considering taking the list of pieces out of the diagram's caption. On my screen it fit well (after I made some moves), with the piece template and the initial position diagram to the right of the Table of Contents. But I use "Largest" fonts, so there was plenty of space to the right of tht ToC for the piece template and the initial position diagram, but that probably isn't the case when using small fonts. My preference would be to restore the piece template, shorten the caption of the initial position diagram, and move things as necessary to make it look good for everyone. Maybe someone can come up with a better layout. Bubba73 (talk), 00:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think CG and Bubba73 have made valid points. It's hard to write about chess without including samples of gameplay, but at present that is not easily understood by anyone who hasn't read and understood at least 1 chess book or gameplay-related article. The best solution I can think of at present is that articles containing gameplay examples (including the start positions) should have a template "Chess gameplay" which links to all the articles about chess notations, one of which should be the diagram symbols. The "symbols" article could also include the abbreviations of the names of the pieces in the major languages of chess literature (English, French, German, Russian at a minimum). Can't remember if the notations !, !!, ?, ?? and !? for good / brilliant / weak / really bad / double-edged moves are used, but I suggest they should be covered somewhere.

The "See also" list should also link to at least a "root" article about notations.

BTW, Bubba73, thanks for fixing the syntax errors in my citations. Philcha (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. The move comments are covered in algebraic notation and punctuation (chess). Bubba73 (talk), 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And there is a section "Notation for recording moves", which leads to the main article chess notation, which tells some of that and leads to the others. Is that enough? Bubba73 (talk), 19:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the articles about notations (I've just edited Chess notation). But it's hard to find the page about symbols used in diagrams (Chess symbols in Unicode, which didn't work in my browser). A template which included links to all relevant notations, symbols etc. could easily be applied to any article that shows positions or moves. Philcha (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Chess pieces
	King
	Queen
	Rook
	Bishop
	Knight
	Pawn

has the symbols for the pieces. I added it but it was removed. But they might not display in your browser either. Bubba73 (talk), 01:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and I'm using an "out of the box" browser (K-meleon, which uses the same engine as Firefox). I'll edit it into Chess notation right now - many thanks! Philcha (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions needed

Background: here's a copy of an exchange between Ioannes Pragensis and me:

Hi Philcha! I am very sorry, but the problem we have with articles like Chess is usually how to make them shorter, not more detailed (see WP:SUMMARY). The details belong to the appropriate articles about chess history and/or the chess masters you know so well. Best regards,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! You said ".. the trouble is trying to keep articles like this (Chess) short enough". I agree. The problem is that before I started editing, the article was unbalanced, e.g. twice as much space devoted to Anderssen and and Steinitz as to any of their successors, and nothing about the confusion at the end of the 1930s (e.g. the 1938 AVRO tournament was the prototype of candidates' tournaments before Fischer became champion). I think for example that what I wrote about Lasker is about the right length for a topic within a root article. My inclination in these circumstances is to write what I think needs to be said, then look at condensing and moving bits of content into dependent articles, while keeping enough in the root to entice readers to visit the dependent articles. I appreciate your desire for the article not to grow any longer and therefore suggest we look at the early history as I've edited it and see how we can condense it in way that leaves readers looking for more. Would you agree? Philcha (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's discuss what point the root article needs to make and what goes elsewhere. Oh, I see the discussion's started while I've been typing this. Philcha (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see your point about unbalancedness. We have 3 about equally long subsections. "Origins of the modern game" describes 400 years. "Birth of a sport" 100 years. "Post-war era" 60 years. So if the description is really unbalanced, then the oldest history should be expanded and not the latest. But there are editors who believe that the while history section is too long (which is not exactly my opinion, but I agree that we cannot expand it).--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly incined to view Wikipedia articles from the point of view of the general reader - in this case either a young player or or (like myself) an older ex-player. I strongly suspect that for most such readers the interesting part of chess history starts with Anderssen (the "Immortal" and "Evergreen" games are too famous and widely-published to ignore, although Anderssen had little influence on the future development of chess) and Steinitz (first real chess theory; first official World Champion); to put it another way, Steinitz (from 1873 onwards) is probably the earliest player whose games wouldn't bring a disdainful smile to the face of a kid who's read and understood a chess primer or 2. So I'd be inclined to compress earlier history in the main article and move the details to another. From the same point of view I don't see how one can omit how amazingly dominant Lasker was in his prime - only Kasparov was so dominant for so long, and even then faced severe challenges from Karpov in their World Championship matches. And the article currently says less about Fischer (probably the most famous / notorious champion of all time) or Kasparov (arguably the greatest; in the news recently for his opposition to Putin's party) than about Anderssen or Steinitz). Similarly it's hard to omit the late 1930s FIDE muddle that led to the "AVRO" model for the post-WW2 system of selecting challengers, or Euwe's role in that muddle; but then one has to explain the "power vacuum" left by Alekhine's unimpressive performances from the mid-1930s onwards, which contrasted with his crushing dominance from 1927 to the early 1930s. To sum up, I'm inclined to present the history from the point of view of to-day, and that may mean shortening the early history and moving the details to dependent articles.

I'm also uneasy about the various "how to play" sections. For example this article tries to teach the moves in one sub-section, while books typically take about 10 pages. Philcha (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Philcha (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that there already is a World Chess Championship article. Therefore (IMHO) the history after 1850 should be greatly abbreviated, much if it replaced with a prominent link to World Chess Championship. I am a big believer in using links rather than duplication. I would limit this article to essential elements of history: the inauguration of the world championship in 1886, the foundation of FIDE in the 1920s, FIDE taking over in 1948, the Fischer boom, the 1993 split and the 2006 reunification. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Ballard, I see your point - I'm not sure I agree with it at present, but I won't rule out that possibility. I too prefer links to duplication (I'm currently working on the restructuring of a set of articles rooted on History of IBM mainframe operating systems, and that project is currently awaiting completion of discussions on one large issue).

From what I currently think is the highest-level point of view (watch this space!), I can see 2 main problems: (1) All the topics with any historical aspects are connected to each other. So for example Alekhine's comparative weakness from the mid-1930s onwards is the root of the late-1930s muddle over how to run the World Championship cycle, which via AVRO led to the system that operated from 1949 to 1962, which was changed in response to Fischer's accusations of Soviet collusion, etc. So it's hard to disentangle the history from the personalities and playing strength of the champions and major contenders and from changes in institutions and procedures. That makes structuring the collection of chess-related articles very difficult. (2) As far as I can see some topics are currently not covered, e.g the late-1930s muddle.

I think (at present!) that the most important function of Chess is to be an efficient and attractive portal to all the other topics. That would mean it also has to be able to accommodate new topics, including but not limited to new events and personalities in top-level competition.

I also think Chess should be written mainly for the benefit of relatively young players and potential players, and therefore historical sections should give most space to recent persons and events. That's probably also beneficial to old fogeys like me, as older fans have probably read plenty about e.g. Alekhine and Capablanca (nowadays Fischer-Spassky is a historical as Alekhine-Capablanca was when I was a kid!). That means history before a certain point has to be covered very briefly in Chess, with another article carrying the details. I suggested the main article's coverage should start with Anderssen, who is currently the first player mentioned in a major sub-section.

As I said above, I have strong reservations about the "how to" sections of Chess since: covering them properly requires more space than Chess can afford to give them; there are already plenty of good sites maintained by good chess clubs. So I'd suggest a relatively brief "How the game is played" section in Chess, which links to the rules, etc.

I could present a proposal here for what I think would be an improved structure, but at this stage I'd rather hear from others whether they think there any significant gaps or imbalances in Chess' coverage. Philcha (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Chess should _not_ be written mainly for the benefit of players (or potential players), but for the benefit of all interested people. This is an encyclopedia, not wikibooks. Therefore we must outline the whole history in a balanced way.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Much of the "how to play" stuff is a duplicate of rules of chess, perhaps that can be trimmed from this article. Bubba73 (talk), 00:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the basic rules of play in a short verion should be here, too. Because it is the very definition of chess: what else is chess if not the set of rules? Moreover it was demanded in the current FAR. Happy New Year!--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would support (Philcha's mention of) a whole new structure. To me, this format is starting to look a bit dreary and technical. Let's get rid of mathematics (yes, chess is all about analysis, but as Dr. Hubner says - it isn't going to engender mass appeal) and psychology; these are both candidates for 'See also' as far as I'm concerned. Let's also get rid of that dull picture of Kasparov, the front page deserves a brighter, sharper picture (I recently put a brilliant picture of Ponomariov in its place, but was reverted). I don't think big blocks of Latin or 'Olde English' really cut it for the front page either - too intellectual - they really belong in the Lewis chessmen article. I also think that the basic moves take up too much space; couldn't this be done in a more compact way, or better still just linked. I know it was a criticism of the assessor, but not everyone is a total beginner. Voorlandt's excellent new Chess around the world article would be a good candidate for a public friendly, mini-feature as a kind of gateway link to his main article. This would have some global appeal maybe, for English speakers around the world. How about a feature on some of the personalities in chess? A feature on Junior/Youth chess? The World Blitz championship? Kids love that sort of stuff. I'd also leave a generous sized feature on 'history' as I think it adds to the magic and mystery of chess, but again, it should focus on some of the more interesting moments, like Fischer's Cold War antics, The Turk, or the Immortal Game perhaps. OK, end of rant. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to chime in earlier in this discussion to say that I thought the article is currently not too bad, but Brittle heaven's comments made me think that perhaps a big redesign would be a good thing. Normally pages that have reached Good Article status are not completely redone, but I'm not opposed to trying to make this article livelier and more fun if it remains encyclopedic. If we do a major overhaul, the new design should probably be sketched out here on the talk page for discussion before making big changes on the page itself. Quale (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

.... to keep the 'front page' fresh and worthy of regular visits, I also wondered if we could have a Game of the month, with light commentary, ideally demonstrating the various aspects of opening play, strategy, tactics, planning, pawn structures etc. Maybe even a featured Opening of the month? Or perhaps quite simply, an Article of the month. Many of our existing chess articles are locked away in obscurity forever, if they don't have prominent links. But I don't want to give the impression that the existing front page is all bad - on the contrary, I think much of the content is worthy of the 'featured article' status and couldn't be bettered. Neither do I want to turn the page into a magazine or pseudo-portal - as Quale says, it needs to retain an encyclopedic focus. We really do need more views though .... Brittle heaven (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC) .

[edit] Selection of sample game

Chess currently links to a sample game in Wikibooks, where the play is dreadful and some of the notes are questionable. I suggest Chess should use the Evergreen game as a sample: it's reasonably short, and pretty; the play is a lot less wild than in the Immortal game. Or search for any chess brevity where the loser plays at least half decently, e.g. Richard Reti vs Savielly Tartakower 1910

Also the presentation on most games sites is better because it uses dynamic Web content (Java and / JavaScript) to show just one board and to highlight moves in the scoresheet alongside the board. I'll ask about this at the Village Pump. Philcha (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) Philcha (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There used to be (until March 2007) a Wikipedia article Sample chess game. It was moved to Wikibooks on the grounds that it was a guide to playing the game, or something like that. I think Wikipedia does need such an article and I hope the objections don't come up again. Bubba73 (talk), 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If we do retain the idea of a sample game, I think it would be good to show on that page the symbols for pices (thanks, Bubba73), since it may be used by beginners. Philcha (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External reference

The first sentence of the second paragraph ("The game is played on a square chequered chessboard with 64 squares") has a reference that is an external link to a website that you have to log in to. The link was removed and readded today. I do not believe that we need an external link to such a website just to provide a reference to it being played on a board with 64 squares - there are plenty of better references if we need a reference to that. I think this link should be removed, and it can be replaced with a better reference if needed. Bubba73 (talk), 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

good catch, I removed the reference, I don't think we actually even need a reference for that statement. Jons63 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It had been deleted and readded today (by other people), so I didn't want to delete it without mentioning it here. Bubba73 (talk), 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I am considering asking the semi-protection for this article, which would prevent anonymous editing. The article has reached FA-status, so the contribution of anonymous editors is mostly vandalism or "good-faith-but-wrong" information. On the last 20 editings by anons, 18 have been reverted and :

11/01/2008 19:21 reverted
10/01/2008 21:15 reverted
10/01/2008 00:58 reverted
09/01/2008 13:03 reverted
09/01/2008 00:31 reverted
07/01/2008 23:45 reverted
05/01/2008 00:56 reverted
05/01/2008 00:54 reverted
04/01/2008 08:28 not reverted, updated the highest rated player
03/01/2008 17:55 reverted
03/01/2008 05:19 reverted
02/01/2008 21:46 reverted
02/01/2008 01:18 not reverted, changed the sentence "Chess is a game for two players." into "Chess is a game played between two players."...
01/01/2008 22:45 reverted
31/12/2007 20:07 reverted
31/12/2007 17:45 reverted
30/12/2007 09:05 reverted
30/12/2007 04:17 reverted
23/12/2007 02:06 reverted
20/12/2007 18:35 reverted

That gives us a rate of reversion around 45% (18/20/2) that is much higher than the average rate of 5% stated by Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection#Criteria for semi-protection. Thus my suggestion of semi-protection is based on the following:

The article has reached the highest grade of quality possible (FA)
About all anonymous editions are vandalism
It would greatly decrease the risk that a reader falls upon a vandalised version of this article
It would free the time of the few of us that watch this page

SyG (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Admittedly, a couple of the vandals were quite humerous, but that is beside the point. Andy4226uk (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good case. Philcha (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll protect the page. It was protected before, which means that indefinite semi-protection is an option. However, that was a year ago. I'll protect it for, let's say, a month; hopefully this will quell the vandalism. If not, it can always be protected again. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 17:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism has been terrible again, lately, perhaps semi-protection should be instituted again? HermanHiddema (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't realized how bad the vandalism has been. A quick look over the last fifty edits show that every IP edit (which constitute about half of all edits) has been reverted (and with just cause). I don't see why this article should be such a lightning rod for vandalism, but it does seem that a longer protection is in order here. faithless (^speak) 21:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having put the article into semi-protection again. Like you, I do not really understand by this article is the subject of such attacks, especially as these do not seem to be coordinated. In all cases, my wife will be glad to know that "Chess" is not a redirect to "Homosexuality" anymore ;-) SyG (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many diagrams ?

Beyond silence erased all the diagrams in the "Rules" section of the article showing the moves of each piece. I reverted his edits as I think it may be interesting for the reader to have a visual explanation of the moves, so the deleting was a bit too bold to my taste. Still, he clearly has a point as:

the current diagrams positioning is messy,
there is another article Rules of chess, so maybe no need to be so detailed in Chess.

As this would be an important change, I would like it to be discussed here before we implement it. What's your opinion ? SyG (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to their removal. Rules of chess is a better article for them, though as far as aesthetics go, I don't think they're that bad for this article. I'm fine either way on this one. faithless (^speak) 09:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, those diagrams were added recently during a feature article review, see Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Chess/archive2. The nominator for review criticized the article for not describing the moves of all the individual pieces, and these diagrams were added for that reason. Personally, I agree that they do take a lot of space. Perhaps someone can come up with a more compact way of showing the moves? HermanHiddema (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they look quite nicely now after Kalupinka changed the layout. I would keep them here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. With the box around them they were taking up too much space, which was wasted white space. Bubba73 (talk), 20:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there isn't need the moving of every pieces, these take much space and some of other left sided image covers the text at my computer! It is a good reason to clear them, there are other supporters so I think it need to be redo. --Beyond silence 17:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So for the moment I understand:

Beyond silence favors the change
faithless is neutral
Ioannes Pragensis would keep them

Far from a consensus it seems... SyG (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of board in the article in fact a lot of pictures also. Would suggest an attempt to perhaps putting 2/3/4 boards horizontally, rather then vertically as they currently are. ChessCreator (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone with the technical (photoshop/whatever) skills to compress this information into two images?
I would say that, given something like the following two diagrams, a skilled image editor should be able to add arrows that will explain the moves of all the pieces, including castling, en passant, etc:

Moves of queen, rook and bishop