This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
when chess books discuss alternate moves of competition games, did the players really try out all the variations during competition?
During competition it is fobidden to move pieces for analysing the game. So players do this only in their mind, not really moving the pieces on the board. Andreas Kaufmann 08:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact these sequences are generally written by the authors of the chess books, without asking the players what they were thinking at all. DanielCristofani 12:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The article states "this gives white an advantage of approximately 5% in tournament play". This statistic needs to be clarified, because it could mean a score of 0.55 to 0.45 on average, or a score of 0.525 to 0.475 on average. The latter is what a 5% advantage would mean to me, but IIRC, the former is actually the true advantage of playing white. --Fritzlein 19:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
It is about 55% to 45%. Using onmy the 1. e4 and 1. d4 games at chess games explorer] I get 54.9% score for white. Bubba73(talk), 21:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Could someone explain to a casual player what exactly is meant by a "score of 55%" (in terms of win/lose/draw)? --Slashme 05:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's say your probability to win, draw, and lose are W, D, and L respectively. By definition W + D + L = 1. Your expected score is then W + D/2. The interesting thing, if I recall correctly, is that White's expected score is about 0.55 when two beginners of equal ability play, and also about 0.55 when two grandmasters of equal ability play. For the beginners you might have W=55%, D=0%, and L=45%, whereas for the grandmasters you might have W=30%, D=50%, L=20%, but in either case the expected score (W + D/2) for white is 0.55.
By my way of figuring, since W - L = 10% at all levels, then we should say White wins 10% more than Black, or else we should explain what we mean by an expected score of 0.55. --Fritzlein 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I get it now. Thanks. I have modified the article in a way that I understand. Hope that works for the other novices as well;-) --Slashme 13:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
If fifty moves have been played by each player without a piece being taken or a pawn moved (in tournament play, some situations are extended to one hundred moves).
I´m quite confident that this was abandond a few years ago. --Vulture
which was abandoned, the fifty move rule, or the hundred move rule? If you're confident, why not amend the text to say that X rule applied for a (insert approximate period of time), but the rule was changed to Y in (approximate time frame). --Wesley
See the official rules linked from the article, specifically rule 5.2e. I don't know that there ever was a hundred move rule; the person claiming this should cite a source. What there used to be was a provision that allowed an extension where it could be demonstrated that a forced mate would take longer. This is theoretically possible with some minor piece endings, but those who find themselves in such a situation during a game are unlikely to have the skill needed to demonstrate a forced mate. The practical application of the rule comes in games involving inexperienced players who have great difficulty concluding a game, and even then they have great difficulty in maintaining the score sheet which would prove that 50 moves have passed. In my experience as arbiter in children's tournaments, I can count on someone raising the rule at least once in every tournament in a situation where it is not applicable at all. Eclecticology
Back when I was an active USCF player, there was an addendum to the 50-move rule published by the USCF explicitly laying out one specific set of conditions under which 100 moves would be allowed: it was for certain Knight-vs-Pawn endings, laid out in great detail in the addendum. I still have it in my paper copy of the rulebook. If Vaulture says it was abandoned, and you can't find it in the present rules, I have no doubt that it was in fact abandoned. I was not able to find any information about exactly when that happened, or why. --Lee Daniel Crocker
Here is my understanding: The original theory behind the fifty-move rule was that pawnless endgames (e.g. KBN vs K) take less than fifty moves to win if you know what you are doing. If you don't know what you are doing, you don't get to prolong the game indefinitely just because you know there is a win there somewhere.
When computers started to do retrograde analysis, they discovered pawnless situations where the distance to mate was greater than fifty moves, and situations involving pawns where the stronger side had a win, but optimal play from both sides went more than fifty moves without a pawn advance. Therefore the rules were changed to give the stronger side a chance to convert those endgames by allowing one hundred moves in some situations.
The rapid proliferation of endgame tablebases uncovered more and more "exceptions" to the fifty-move rule, and even some cases where more than one hundred moves were necessary to convert. (Apparently 243 moves to conversion (262 to mate) is the current record. See .) Tournament organizers saw the complexity of the draw rules spinning out of control, and perhaps even requiring a computer to say whether someone was eligible to claim a draw or not. In face of looming rule insanity, the original fifty-move rule was restored. In theoretical cases where there is a win on the board that takes more than fifty moves to convert, it's just too bad for the stronger side.
At one time the 50 move rule was extended to 100 moves for certain endgames, but as more and more such endgames weere found, the rule (wisely) went back to 50 moves. Not all of them were pawnless. One was 2N vs P, which can require up to 66 moves with best play. This and two others were listed in FIDE rules around 1960. The other two were: K+R+B vs K+R and K+R+RP on its original square vs K+P blocking the other pawn + B on opposite color as opponent's pawn. Bubba73(talk) 01:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
PS My daughter had the 2N vs P endgame in a tourment last spring, but the game was drawn. Bubba73(talk) 14:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why this is separated from the Chess article? -- Zoe
The chess article would be too long, and maybe not provide as good overview as it does now. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 10:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it should be "Official Rules of Chess"? –Floorsheim 08:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We would run into problems like 'official according to whom?' etc. Let's stay adaptive. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 10:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I thought there was some sort of international convention. Maybe we could reference that. My concern is that the rules listed seem too constrictive. Of the many times I've played chess, for example, I've never played it in such a way that if you touch a piece you have to move it. It seems as though if we don't reference an international convention, we'll have to go into detail about variations on the rules. –Floorsheim 00:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The bracketed list of material sufficient to checkmate in the Timing section seems flawed to me. It is perfectly possible to checkmate with only two Knights against a hasted defence, so it shouldn't be an draw if the defender runs out of time, should it? (And it is of course also possible to checkmate with only one Knight if the defender has a few ill-placed pieces in the King's way...) -- Jao 15:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
With King + 2 knights versus a king, checkmate cannot be forced. You can have a position like White: Kh6, Ne4, Nf4, Black: Kg8. Now white moves Nf6+. Blank has to move Kh8 to get mated, whereas either Kf7 or Kf8 avoids the mate in one. With the other situation, there probably isn't a forced mate. Bubba73(talk) 01:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
That section wasn't quite right - it is really whether or not checmate is possble, not the material. Insufficient material is one way that checkmate is impossible. Bubba73(talk), 02:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In contrast to FIDE, the USCF no longer requires the king to be touched first in castling. Touching the rook first is OK if the player "intends to castle". I can't get them to clarify how you know that a person "intends to castle" if, say, he moves his rook and then reaches for the king, but doesn't touch it and draws his hand away. Is that "intent to castle"? They also won't clarify what happens if the player moves the rook and doesn't immediately move the king. They won't say if he is committed to a rook move, commited to castling, or what. They also don't say what happens if the player moves the rook then the other player moves or starts to move and then the first player says that he was intending to castle. Bubba73(talk) 01:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I've got some more information on this. The USCF rules still state that the king is to be touched before the rook, or they can both be touched at the same time. What has changed in the USCF rule is that the normal rule was that if the rook was touched first, a rook move had to me made instead of castling. Now the player can castle after touching the rook, but is subject to a warning the first time. After that time, the penalty is up to the director. (If you move the king two squares and take your hand off it, you are committed to castling, if it is legal). Bubba73(talk) 02:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
-I don't think the "convenient practice" is common enough or useful enough to include.
-"white wins 10% more games" would mean that white wins 110% as many games as black wins. Using the numbers from "chess games explorer" with white starting with e4 or d4, I get white winning 136% as many games as black wins, or better than 4 to 3. Besides, this is "original research", and besides that it probably doesn't belong in an article about rules anyway.
-I don't think we want to suggest that there's consensus about what happens in chess with perfect play. It's really not known and it may well never be.
-I thought it worth explaining castling and en passant in this article. I tried to be brief. Took out some of the tournament-related detail about castling though--I think it's a bit much. Obviously if people disagree they can put it back.
Maybe I am missing something (and I am new to contributing to Wikipedia), but what was the purpose of 70.172.215.105's change to the Draws section adding the note about Kings giving check to each other? I suppose some variant might make that reasonable, but it seems bogus to me.
You're right, it doesn't make sense, I don't know why it was added, and I've just reverted it. DanielCristofani 03:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The actual colors of chess sets are usually white and black, cream and brown, red and black, or buff and green; but the pieces and squares are always referred to as "white" and "black". -- Now I've seen white and red or cream and red, but never black and red. Is this an error, or just me? Also, it is worth mentioning that at one time the two sides could be referred to as White and Red (as they are in Through the Looking-Glass)? 213.249.135.36 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this is an error, possibly confusing colors of the pieces with colors of the board. There will never be a black and red set unless it is a really cheap toy. Similarly, boards are commonly buff and green, but I've never seen a green set. You can change that, or I will. Bubba73(talk), 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's the fact that it's 5:30am, but the starting position for chess looks incorrect to me. As the old adage states (mentioned in this article), queen on colour and white on right -- of course this does not jive with the layout displayed which clearly has the queens on the opposite colour (as well as the kings). I'm almost positive this is wrong and I'm wondering why it's gone unnoticed... maybe lack of sleep is making me miss something. Professor Ninja 10:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, it was the sleep talking. I got the representations of the king and queen backwards. No wonder it didn't look right to me. Professor Ninja 10:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The Rules of chess were redesignated the Laws of chess quite some time ago. May I have views, please, on retitling the article accordingly. BlueValour 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Your request for opinions deserves a response, even if an extremely belated one. I'm neutral, and would be satisfied to have the article at either title. If nothing else we should certainly create a redirect from Laws of chess. I would do it now, but it would make the page move harder, should we choose to do it. Quale 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a stong opinion, except that I think a person would more likely type in "rules of chess" or "chess rules" than "laws". anyhow, it may be a moot point soon. Bubba73(talk), 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual. This is essentially all this article is.--Crossmr 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it might have been viewed as that when you listed it for deletion, but it isn't anymore....193.128.87.36 09:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The article says "To describe moves and locations on the board, either algebraic chess notation or the almost obsolete descriptive chess notation is used." In my mind, DN is obsolete, and almost extinct. should that be changed? Bubba73(talk), 01:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I would concur with (completely) "obsolete", but I note that in my club, there are three regulars (out of about forty) who still use it. So I would hesitate to call it extinct. Note, "almost obsolete" seems to smack of the same imprecision that "very unique" has. What does "almost" accomplish? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It is obsolete, "almost" doesn't need to be there. Bubba73(talk), 19:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I took out "almost" before "obsolete". AFAIK, the last publication to use DN was Chess Life, and they only used it a little in the late 1980s or perhaps early 1990s. Bubba73(talk), 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Do the "advanced rules" and "controversy" sections still need to be here? I think they are a direct copy from fifty move rule, and that article is linked in the main body (under "Draws") and also in the list of articles about specific rules near the end. Bubba73(talk), 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't like duplication, so I would say merge anything to the relevant subpages (and as you say, probably nothing to merge) and remove them. Quale 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that was my fault. I was annoyed at the deletion argument and added those sections as cut-and-pastes to show that this page could be more than an instruction manual. But they don't really belong here, which is why they were seperate articles in the first place. Chop them out, reword them, merge them, whatever you want really. They were only there to appease the deletion argument 193.128.87.36 12:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I unserstand. I took them out a few days ago. Bubba73(talk), 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently tried to shrink the table of six diagrams illustrating piece movements. My desire was to allow more space on the left side of the page for the text to wrap through--the gap was quite narrow. While I was able to shorten the captions without losing much, the table still has a lot of dead space. It appears that the diagram template itself inserts a good deal of space around itself although reading its code I cannot demonstrate that to myself. Neither can I make alignment changes which allows for more horizontal space (although I did vertically top-justify the diagrams, which looks better).
Now I like the idea of having the six illustrations all together. But its impact on the text flow is something I am not satisfied with. I am not a table markup or html formatting guru and would like to ask for some feedback as to whether there is an easy way to lay out the diagrams in a lot less horizontal space. We could even revisit putting all six in one table, although to me that seems like a Plan B.
Oh, and feel free to revert my table edit; the only tangible improvement was the vertical justification which can easily be specifically readded. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the recent edit and revert about moving the king and then touching the the rook - the revert (edit comment "Touching a rook AFTER making the king part of a castling is immaterial, as the corresponding rook move MUST be made anyway") is correct. FIDE rule 4.6 and USCF rule 9C state that after the king has been released on a square two squares over, the player is committed to castling that way, if it is legal. Bubba73(talk), 00:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
A heads up: I tried to improve the wording of the goal in the intro. By using the word "inevitable" I hoped to avoid the necessity of explaining that the king doesn't actually get captured (I moved that into the body). I also trimmed out reference to protecting one's own king from this; I felt the symmetry of the game made this idea clear enough so that the intro would read better if omitted. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In the Setup section, there is a short paragraph on the usage of the term "piece", as well as "(chess)man". No qualms with the content (although I don't usually prefer the imperative voice "Note that..." in a WP article), but I think there is some ambiguity that needs addressing. Note that (sorry) the chart immediately above that paragraph enumerates the players' pieces, yet includes pawns in this enumeration, in apparent contradiction to the usage described for the term piece!
I think there are two usages of piece being confounded here. First is the physical entity that comes in the box when you buy a chess set, of which there are 32, usually wood, etc., etc. The other refers to the abstract entity which forms part of the players' assets of the game, which move in various ways, can capture, etc., etc. I think the enumeration of the set uses the first meaning, and the terminology usage describes the second.
If so, it would help to clarify this in the article. I am not going to dive in now, but may very well later if no one does so first. Please reply with any feedback, esp. if anyone thinks I am misunderstanding the issues here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think that
Note that in chess terminology, the pawn is often not called a 'piece'; with this usage, it would be said that each player has eight pieces and eight pawns. The terms 'man' or 'chessman' may be used to mean a piece or pawn.
should be removed because it is a bit of terminology that really has nothing to do with the rules, which is the topic of this article. I think it could be confusing to have it there. Every other use of "piece" in the article (and there are many) use it in the sense of including pawns. Bubba73(talk), 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. Actually, there is quite a bit of similar descriptive but non rules-related text (white squared bshops, e.g.) here. I may start pruning...gently. Baccyak4H (Yak!) —Preceding comment was added at 17:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed
Chess tables (either of wood or stone) are sometimes made with a chess board designed into the surface. Sometimes human chess boards are drawn on the floor or ground. Many travel boards fold into a box that the pieces fit into and some of them use magnets to hold the pieces in place.
because it doesn't have anything to do with the rules. It might go in some other article. Bubba73(talk), 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Missed that one. ;-) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't see anything in this article about noise. No mention of mobile phones ringing etc see Ruslan Ponomariov. Something to add. ChessCreator (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It is illegal to distract the opponent, etc. That isn't mentioned in the article. Bubba73(talk), 15:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There probably needs to be a section on conduct/behavior/ethics, and it could go there. Bubba73(talk), 15:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've added a section on Conduct. Bubba73(talk), 03:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]Done
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4mm, use 4mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4 mm.[?]Done
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]Done
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
correctly
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]Done
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]Done
infobox - there is one for pieces, but otherwise I don't know a good one to add
Table of Contents may be too long - I think it is OK
redundancy - I eliminated some. There may be a little left.
copyediting - I've done a lot of this, but more could probably be done. I've read it and read it until I'm getting sick of it. I try to forget what I know and read it like I'm reading it for the first time, but I'm to the point where I'm tired of doing that. Bubba73(talk), 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still tweaking the article, but here are the criteria for a GA, with my comments in italics:
1. Well written:
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
I believe so. Please fix anything that is wrong.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
(c) it contains no original research.
I think it is referenced well. The only thing that might be considered O.R. are the diagrams showing the moves of the pieces. AFAIK, they didn't come directly from any of the references.
3. Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
I think so.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
No problems with neutrality.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
There is nothing like that, but from time to time there are edits which are either vandalism or an edit by someone with a mistaken idea about a rule.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Plenty of diagrams and a few appropriate images. No copyright or fair use issues.Bubba73(talk), 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I considered changing the structure under Movement to this:
Movement
King
Castling
Rook
Bishop
Queen
Knight
Pawn
en passant
promotion
Check
The reason is that each of these have their own main article. However, I haven't done it since that would make the section on most pieces very short. Does anyone have a suggestion of changing it *or leaving it as it is or using this structure)? Bubba73(talk), 23:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
An alternative is to basically keep the current structure, but make subsections for en passsant and promotion the way there is one for castling now, i.e.
I would favour your last proposal, that has the advantage not to overload the "movement" section for the pawn. I will also help to expand the sections on "en passant" and on "promotion". SyG (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Not everyone is interested in competition and I see no reason why mention that at one time the two sides could be referred to as White and Red, as they are in Through the Looking-Glass, cannot be included. It's interesting. Also mention of large marked out boards with people as players, areas provided for chess in some parks in America and even Wizards chess in Harry Potter. Obviously just a very brief mention and not too much but it's an encycolpedia entry not just an instruction manual. JMO. Mimi(yack) 17:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for these suggestions. I do not fully understand, however, what parks in America or Harry Potter have to do with "Rules of chess". It seems to me these mentions would be better placed in other articles, like "Chess" or "Places where chess is played" or something else. SyG (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, this article is about the rules of chess. I don't know of any time that the sides were white and red, although some sets are red. Anyhow, that isn't in the rules of chess. 'Large marked out boards", "parks in America", ahd Harry Potter have nothing to do with the rules of chess. Bubba73(talk), 21:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
And even when the physical pieces are red, they are still called "black". Bubba73(talk), 23:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Fidelogo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
I count 35 inline references in the main article, plus a few in the footnotes. Is there anything you think needs to be referenced that isn't? Bubba73(talk), 02:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably SriMesh is confused by the parenthetical referencing used here. My experience is that footnotes is more common on Wikipedia. However, of course both approach qualify as "inline references". -- Jao (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I just wondered if some images in say, the lead and equipment sections could be switched for others? At the moment, the article looks like a repeat of the Chess page and maybe that's what the editor above meant when he said "A bit dry" and wanted to inject a bit of Alice in Wonderland (inappropriate though his suggestion was). I suppose a page on the rules is never going to be exciting, but maybe some fresh images might help? Any thoughts? Brittle heaven (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I just googled and the best I got was this, but it would lead to copyright hassles and claims that it's "unencyclopedic".
I checked Through the Looking Glass and it has no chess-related images - and I don't see what images from that book would have to do with the rules. -- Philcha (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, but I just meant choose some others from Wiki Commons. There are quite a few there, many unused in our en.wiki articles. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the least stereotyped image I could see at commons. -- Philcha (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't particularly like the image in the lead. It is used in several places I think. In the equipment section, the one of the board and clock - I think there are a couple of other similar ones that could be used. As far as the 1849 Staunton pieces, I think this is the only photo of the actual 1849 Jaques/Cook/Satunton pieces. Bubba73(talk), 15:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
What about this one for the lead section? Bubba73(talk), 15:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Some other candidates ...
And maybe for later in the article, a checkmate image like this one by a fellow called Bubba73, whoever he is ...
Brittle heaven (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the one on the left tells a story - a group of ordinary people of various ages, enjoying a game but taking it seriously, even using a clock. The biggest disadvantage of b/w is that details are less clear at thumbnail size, but it works for me at 250px width, which is the same as the current lead image. -- Philcha (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I admit the shocking scene of regicide has impact too. -- Philcha (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as Brittle heavens choices, #1 - to dark and not sharp enough, #2 bad angle, #3 - not as good as the one we have, #4 - non-standard pieces, and this is about the rules. As far as the checkmate one, it is used in checkmate and I made it to replace another photo that several people didn't like because it had the king on its side after checkmate, as if resigning after being checkmated. And I like this B&W one better than the one at the pool because it is thigher on the chessboard and doesn't include as many supurflous people. Bubba73(talk), 16:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to leave it to those who have contributed to the article. Some good options there hopefully and another shot of a board and clock somewhere, if you want to use it. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to mention—in the 'chess diagram' section of Commons, there are also some animations of promotion, en passant etc, if they're any use. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've put the Kiev public park pic in the article for now.
The section Equipment contains fractions like ¾ or ⅜ that I personally find very hard to read. That is contrary to the spirit of WP:ACCESS, especially for persons with visual disabilities. On the other hand, changing these fractions to full numbers like 0.75 would distort the citation and be less elegant (especially for 3/8). So I would like your opinion! SyG (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Accessibility issues aside for a moment, the source does give them in those fractions. Secondly, using 3.375 instead of 3⅜ seems to imply too exact of a number. Is a king 3.375 inches tall OK but one 3.374 inches tall not allowed?
As far as accessibility, there is an alternative, {{frac|p|q}} for p⁄q and {{frac|N|p|q}} for N+p⁄q, e.g. 3+3⁄8 versus 3⅜. Maybe that would be better. Bubba73(talk), 19:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a no-win situation. The {{frac|p|q}} approach is better for people with poor but not "disabled" eyesight, like me. OTOH for those who are actually or virtually blind and have to use screen-readers it's a nightmare, as e.g. {{frac|3|3|8}} generates the following (X)HTML:
which is not the value of the fraction but (X)HTML code for a visual representation of the value, and absolute gobbledygook when spoken.
A good solution might be to create a template that uses {{frac|p|q}} to generate a more legible visible represention but also includes a (X)HTML title attribute that includes the actual value, as IIRC the W3C Accessibility recommendation is that screen-readers should speak the content of title attributes. -- Philcha (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to do that. Of course, there is the 3-3/8, but I don't like to see that. Bubba73(talk), 21:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
All right, I have used the template mentioned by Bubba73. It is a bit ugly but more accessible. SyG (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Ooops! I had completely forgotten about your important objection (I should have re-read the thread)! Kudos to you for having raised the issue on the Talk page! SyG (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Most dictionaries don't list "gameplay" as a word. The New Oxford American Dictionary does, but the only definition is "the tactical aspects of a computer game". If so, then "gameplay" is being used incorrectly. Bubba73(talk), 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I found this article very informative, and it was easier to understand than I would have guessed. The references seem good, and I believe the article is close to passing. The biggest problem I found was that so much of the information is in list form. Since this is an encyclopedia, prose is preferred. There are 13 lists (plus one sublist) in the prose of the article. Quite a few of them could be easily converted to prose, and I believe this would improve the readability of the article.
I will place the nomination on hold to allow for this concern to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Bubba73, if you make a copy of this as a subpage of your user page, e.g. User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules of chess I'll give you hand with the lists, and any consequent re-shuffling of images to keep them aligned with the relevant text. I've found sandbox versions very handy for trying out such changes, and my last GA reviewer said she hadn't realised how useful they could be (see for example Talk:Small_shelly_fauna#Another_review).
Done, and I eliminated the first list which is the easiest to take out. The rest will be much harder to deal with, since the lists seem the natural way to present it, and that is the way rulebooks do it too. Bubba73(talk), 14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Bubba73, I've taken the huge liberty of reformatting section User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess#Initial_setup in a way that I think: avoids a large chunk of whitespace; places the pieces' names, quantities and symbols in one handy package next to the initial diagram. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. If you do like it, I'll see what I can do with other lists. -- Philcha (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
That looks fine to me. Bubba73(talk), 17:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
One little thing, in text those small numbers should be spelled out (I'm a big stickler on that). But in a table like this, it might be better to use digits for the number of pieces. Bubba73(talk), 17:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I've changed text to numbers in User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess#Initial_setup.
I've changed lists to prose in User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess#Illegal_position and User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess#Conduct.
I've increased the number of levels of bullet in User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess#Timing as it's a complex set of nested "if"s.
Please check that I haven't unintentionally changed the meaning in any of these. -- Philcha (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
GaryColemanFan, I've had a good look at the other bullet lists and think converting these to prose would make the relevant sections harder to read. Wikiproject Chess set out to improve this article after discovering that it's the chess article with the largest hit rate, in other words it's mainly used by beginners who need all the help they can get. As Wikipedia:List#Bulleted_lists notes, "Many Wikipedians feel this style is the easiest to read."
User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess#Timing is what a computer programmer would recognise as a 3-level nested "if" structure. Even programmers expect these to be indented to show the logical structure, and non-programmer readers will absolutely need this assistance. The examples at Wikipedia:Embedded_list are less complex than this. The complexity is in the rules themselves (I was shocked at how complex they've become, as I haven't played competitive chess for many years), not in the way this article is written.
User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess#Basic_moves is simpler - until the reader gets to Pawns.
In User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess#Castling, all the pre-conditions must be met, and it's clearer if each is identified visually.
In User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess#Check it's essential to make it clear exactly how many ways there are to escape check, and the cases in which interposition does not work.
Likewise in User:Bubba73/Sandbox/Rules_of_chess#Draws it's essential to make it clear exactly how many situations can lead to a draw. -- Philcha (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it has the right number of lists now, i.e. that the ones it has now are best that way. Bubba73(talk), 22:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The changes in the sandboxes look good. I would love to see them added to the article, as I think they will present the information in a more encyclopedic way. I do agree, however, that some of the lists should remain as lists. It is definitely the best way to present some of the information. Once they are added, I will look through the article some more to get a sense of how the balance between prose and lists is working. Thanks for the quick response to the review. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I've transferred the changes to the artcile, and also made a couple of images in "Codification" display properly. -- Philcha (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
A bot came through and took those two images out of the sandbox version. Bubba73(talk), 14:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see now why they had: at the start. I'll reinstate with: now in case we do more updates there. -- Philcha (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Detailed review
Throughout the article, "he" and "his" are used. Since chess can be played by females, a gender-neutral term should be used (keeping in mind that "they" is a plural pronoun).
This has been started, but there are still several instances of "he" or "him" used without an accompanying feminine pronoun.
"rules also govern...rules for handicapped players" - prhaps "accommodations for handicapped players"?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm confused about number four in the "Castling" list. If the king and rook have not yet moved, is it not redundant to say that they must be on the same rank? I'm assuming that this is included in the rules, however, so it should be left in.
"could theoretically capture a piece in the kings space (that is, capture the king, itself)" - this sounds like an overly complicated way of saying "could theoretically capture the king" - is it necessary to give such a wordy description?
There is inconsistency throughout the article regarding the pronoun used for a king. Either "he" or "it" should be used, but not both.
In the "Check" section, a brief explanation of "pin" would be helpful (eg. ", or unable to move without exposing a more valuable piece").
"indicating it on his scoresheet by writing "resigns", circling the result of the game, or writing "1–0" if Black resigns or "0–1" if White resigns" - is this a three-step process, or are these three ways to indicate resignation? The way it is written now, it appears to be three different ways.
I'm confused as to why one player with a knight and king and the other player with a king couldn't lead to a checkmate. If the white king was in h1 and the black king was in h3, the black knight could move to f3 or e2 to cause a checkmate.
The wikilink to "over the board" at the beginning of the "Competition rules" section doesn't seem particularly helpful, as it just links to a list of chess-related topics.
"If a player is actually delivering a checkmate on the board" - this seems like complicated phrasing. Can it be simplified so that it is easier to understand?
I find the list at the end of the "Timing" section quite confusing. I'm not sure if it would work better as prose, but simplifying it would really help the article.
From the equipment section, is black not also a common color on chessboards?
"The height of the king should be 85–105 millimetres" "The US Chess Federation allows the height of the king to be 86–114 mm" - is this an inconsistency, or are these from different governing bodies? If so, this should be clarified the first time (eg. "FIDE states that the height of the king should be 85-105 millimetres"). These also seem like they should go together (eg. "FIDE states that the height of the king should be 85-105 millimetres, while the US Chess Federation allows the height of the king to be 86–114 mm").
"During this period, the pawn acquired the right to be promoted" - during which period?
If the queen could only move one space in the 16th century, how could a queen have acquired its current move in the 15th century?
In the third paragraph of the "History" section, the queen acquiring its current move is repeated.
This is still a concern, as it is stated at the end of the second paragraph and at the beginning of the third paragraph.
I have a hard time following the "History" section. Could it be reorganized so that the oldest rules come first and then show the progression of changes up to the present? Starting in the 16th century, then jumping back to the 15th, then back to 1200 is confusing. Please note that I'm just asking for paragraphs to be cut and pasted, not for a rewriting of the section.</>
"The fifty move rule under which a draw can be claimed if there has been no pawn move and no capture in the last fifty moves." - what about it?
There are a few places in the article in which pictures could be left-aligned. Staggering them a bit would better comply with the MOS guidelines on image placement.
Regarding this edit, is {{div col}} really a better way of doing columns? From a structural standpoint, of course divs are better than a table for this, but the template does break the columnness completely on half of my Windows browsers (Opera and IE7; works fine with Firefox and Chrome). Not that having all the see alsos in one column is a big deal, but it wasn't intended, was it? —JAO • T • C 11:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was better. Before I made that change the See Also articles were in two columns, using a different system where you have to tell it where to break the columns. This system is more dynamic, you don't have to change where you break the columns if items are added or deleted. Bubba73(talk), 16:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The "articles about rules" uses the other method. When I made the change, I was using Firefox and it worked just as it should for me. But in IE8 RC1, the new method does not break it into two columns. Bubba73(talk), 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I changed it back, so it would work with IE8. Bubba73(talk), 17:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.