Talk:Chess/Archive 10

FA concerns

Hello,

I stumbled upon this article and noticed it has been an FA since at least 2004 and was last reviewed in 2010, and so I decided to review it on the criteria. While this article is not awful in its current state I do have some concerns that negatively affect its FA status.

• The pieces assumed their current powers might be confusing to a reader unfamiliar with Chess. Perhaps "movements" is better, although that might not be comprehensive enough.
• The word "Checkmate" is derived from the Persian Shah mat ("the king is dead"). does not belong in the lead, even as a footnote. It might be appropriate for the body, or it might simply be a piece of trivia more suitable for the History of Chess article.
• There are a couple citations in the lead; while policy doesn't prohibit them they're often seen as suboptimal for uncontroversial facts, which characterize the statements cited.
• There are many uncited paragraphs in the "Rules" section; per MINREF I'm not going to raise the biggest fuss about it and AFAIK there might be a guideline somewhere that explicitly says citations are not generally needed, similar to the plots in works of fiction.
• A bigger issue in the "Rules" section is that subsections should probably be merged, such as "Castling" and maybe even "Check" into "Movement".
• This article can more generally stand to be given a thorough GOCE treatment, given the above points and others like them.
• There are several uncited paragraphs and paragraph-ending sentences in the "History" section; unlike the Rules, these should not generally be left uncited.

Briefly looking through the Bibliography the sourcing seems adequate, so this is probably an easy save for those interested, but for now I don't think this would be TFA material. If these concerns are not addressed I'm afraid I might need to take this to FAR, but there's no particular rush on that front. Thanks!

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This is going to be very helpful. Question about citation in the "Rules" section: most of it is intended to be from the FIDE Handbook, which is cited in the first sentence of the section. Should there be more citations of that website? On the other hand, probably things have crept in that aren't from that website -- I have even removed one or two myself recently. Do you have specific items that we should be citing sources for? Thanks! Bruce leverett (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll have to take a deeper look myself, but it's generally good practice to cite the ends of every paragraph; some go as far to cite the ends of every sentence, but I don't think that's necessary, but do cite anything not from the Handbook (or anything that's particularly controversial or counterintuitive, if it exists) where it occurs in the text (i.e., at the end of the sentence/clause in which it appears). Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson, have your concerns about this article been resolved? (t · c) buidhe 00:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

While there are some choices I personally wouldn't do (including one remaining citation in the lead), I have no qualms sufficient to take this to FAR. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe Fancy seeing you here. My concerns, just listed below, are new and obviouly not resolved yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: I concur this needs a major improvement or FAR. In addition to several unreferenced paragraphs, problems with prose/MoS (too many short paragraphs in some places, for example), and insufficient referencing like citing books without citing a page range, the article lacks information about the use of chess to study military tactics (granted, it is a minor issue, but it just shows this article is not yet sufficiently comprehensive for a FA-level). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• • @Piotrus: If you are so inclined you may take it to have a Featured article review with your concerns after you have followed its instructions and duly notified users and WikiProjects. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe: As my concerns have not been addressed, and I think you have more experience with this, what do you suggest? Is there a handy script to start the FAR process? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

      Piotrus, It's pretty straightforward. You just have to insert {{subst :FAR}} (without the space) at the top of this talk page and then follow the instructions to create the review page, making sure that you notify major contributors and relevant wikiprojects. (t · c) buidhe 09:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

      Buidhe I know this is immaterial, but for trying to demonstrate a substitution {{subst:Like this}}, you'd want to use the template {{tls}}. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Resignation etiquette

There are several reasons not to try to describe "resignation etiquette" in the section on how a game ends, or indeed anywhere in this article.

Peters's remark is at best a gross over-generalization. Grandmasters frequently continue play after losing major material -- a recent Jones-Carlsen game comes to mind.

Moreover, when a player resigns before it's over, one cannot infer that he/she did so to avoid giving an "insult" to the opponent. Players generally resign because they don't want to play on. This is as true at the highest levels as at lower levels. In serious chess, most players are inclined to play far beyond the point of hopelessness, because they don't trust their own estimate of whether or not the game is hopeless.

Generally speaking, the question of resignation etiquette is constantly discussed by chess players (it's easy to see this in the forums). As encyclopedia editors, we are not in a position to make pronouncements on what is proper etiquette, because there is no universally respected reliable source on the subject. I say this with due respect to the beginner's book by Pritchard and the highly regarded column by Peters. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

There's also the alternative etiquette as practised by Donald Byrne in the Game of the Century which holds that allowing the opponent to deliver checkmate is a tribute to an opponent who plays a good game against you. Generally, though, it's "uncool" to actually get mated. Many players have *never* been checkmated in a serious game, but it's a stretch to say that playing on is an "insult". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Your change at least made it less verbose, and less conspicuous, but it didn't solve the problems I raised. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably better without it but I'm compromising. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course there is also the old chess maxim, "you can't win by resigning". Larry Evans recounted a story of a player who adjourned in a hopeless position only to be rewarded with a full point when his opponent died of a heart attack the next day before resumption. (Apparently this story is entirely made up and no one has been able to find an actual case of this happening.) There are also stories of certain players who would adjourn hopeless positions only to resign by telephone at resumption as a dick move to inconvenience their opponents. (I think there are also stories of players who sealed the move "Resigns".) I see Bruce's point since I don't think it's safe to generalize about tournament players' practice. Instead of making a claim about what tournament players actually do, maybe we could talk about what tournament players expect their opponents should do. As Bruce says, every chess player agrees their opponents should resign, so maybe something like "it is considered good etiquette to resign when in a hopeless position rather than prolonging the game to be checkmated". Of course the threshold of what is a hopeless position is not precisely defined, and some players may not observe this custom themselves. (Just like any other custom, if everyone did it, there would be no need for a rule of etiquette.)

And also this is obvious in December 2020, but for anyone reading this years later, this etiquette claim was added to the article because of the current popularity of The Queen's Gambit (miniseries). Resignation etiquette is a plot point in the shows. Quale (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know that, I haven't seen the show. Now that I know why the editor was pursuing this, I am less annoyed. The topic of resignation psychology has always been arcane chess lore, but now that the general public has been introduced to it, I guess a wee bit of explanation in this article might not be a bad thing. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It's worth a look. Better representation of chess than I've seen before in film or tv. Still got some things wrong, e.g. why does she never draw any games? Is the tournament the rare (for chess) knockout format? Why does she always face the main badass in the final round? etc. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the limited series great, and even people who don't know chess enjoy it. Pandolfini and Kasparov were chess consultants, and it shows, even though concessions were made for storytelling purposes. (Tournament games at classical time controls that are played at blitz speed is a bit unrealistic, and talking during games was something I never witnessed even at low level local tournaments.) Generally I don't think that before this series anyone would have thought that they could portray chess with that much realism and gain a large audience. The alternate ending that Kasparov produced to use in the final game, is fantastic. (Ivanchuk–Wolff, 1993 Biel Interzonal, enhanced at the end the way that Alekhine used to do in some of his published games when he found prettier lines in analysis than what was actually played.) All the more admirable when you realize that they could have faked every game and only a relatively small part of the audience would have known or cared. The writer and director is a chess player, and he wanted the chess to be realistic. Quale (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Refimprove / citations needed

I removed the blanket {{refimprove}} that covered the entire article. I don't deny that references should be improved, but that's true of nearly every article in Wikipedia. Given the size of the article and the fact that there are already 154 inline cites, this tag was not helpful. You can help to improve the article by marking specific claims and sections that need improved references, or better yet, provide cites if you can rather than tagging. Quale (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I've never liked templates like this, their main effect is to reduce the credibility of the article while contributing nothing to improving it. MaxBrowne2 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

change Chess is also present in contemporary popular culture. For example, the characters in Star Trek play a futuristic version of the game called "Tri-Dimensional Chess". "Wizard's Chess" is featured in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter plays. The hero of Searching for Bobby Fischer struggles against adopting the aggressive and misanthropic views of a world chess champion.[64] to Chess is also present in contemporary popular culture. For example, the Netflix series, Queen's Gambit is one of their most popular original series. The characters in Star Trek play a futuristic version of the game called "Tri-Dimensional Chess". "Wizard's Chess" is featured in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter plays. The hero of Searching for Bobby Fischer struggles against adopting the aggressive and misanthropic views of a world chess champion.[64] Jriseman (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done You suggested adding a phrase similar to "the Netflix series, Queen's Gambit is one of their most popular original series". This miniseries certainly created a decent impact in the chess community, so I added a sentence with some sources: "Chess is also central to The Queen's Gambit, Netflix's most-watched scripted miniseries,[65] which received a positive response from the chess community and increased public interest in the game.[66][67]" Feel free to tweak if needed. TimSmit (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference should be a note

The reference after "Primary sources in English describing chess variants and their rules include David Pritchard's encyclopedias" should really be a note, but I don't know how to change it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The easiest way I know to make a note is {{refn}}. I made that edit. Quale (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of any branding exercises, it is still universally known as FIDE

The acronym is as familiar to chess players as FIFA is to football fans. We barely even think of it as French. Nobody calls it the "World Chess Federation". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have called it the "World Chess Federation" to my non-chess-playing wife. And my daiughter, who has played in more USCF tournaments than I have, doesn't know what FIDE is. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is how Association football does it: "Football is governed internationally by the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA; French: Fédération Internationale de Football Association), which organises ..."

I think it would be reasonable for us to do something like that. I will do that in the morning, if there aren't too many objections. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "FIDE" is so important that it should be mentioned in the intro and I added it there. On the other hand, this article is the main article of the series about chess, and is therefore written not for experienced chess players nor for French-speaking people, but for the general English-speaking public, and so we should start with the English name for the Chess Federation. The French name is mentioned in the section Organization of competitions, which is OK.Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

No. It's not even clear whether it's supposed to be called the "International Chess Federation" or the "World Chess Federation" in English, they have used both on their website. FIDE is the primary name by which it is known in English. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Both the lead paragraphs and the section about "Organization of competitions" now mention both the acronym FIDE, and one of the English names. I think it is correct to mention both the universally used acronym, and the "official" business name, as is done in Association football. But unfortunately, we are disagreeing with ourselves -- lead pgphs say "World Chess Federation", section says "International Chess Federation". This is not good; I think it is due to very recent "branding". Although I do not advocate that we try to keep up with the branding efforts of organizations that we have articles about, I would like to change one of these to match the other.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, FIDE is still recognized by IOC. I have updated the citation for this. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, the IOC/"chess is recognized as a sport" stuff can be included somewhere in the body in that case. Putting it in the lead was basically done to appease in edit warrior who wanted to put "chess is a sport" in the opening sentence, which is patently absurd. Chess is a "sport" if a government or organization defines it as one for legal or funding purposes, basically. There is no hard and fast definition of "sport", and chess arguably requires a higher level of fitness than shooting or darts. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Chess notation

In the "Notation for recording moves" section, I propose taking out all except algebraic. They are all covered in the main article and the general reader doesn't need to be introduced to the others in this article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This is English wikipedia and English speakers need to know about descriptive notation. The earliest English language publication I know of that used algebraic was Murray Chandler's column in the New Zealand listener from 1976. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bubba73. I don't think the general English speaker needs to know about descriptive notation. Algebraic notation has been the standard for 40 years. Most readers of this article will never read a game of chess anyway, and for the chess players that do need to read descriptive notation who don't already know it, descriptive notation has the details. The best reason to learn descriptive notation is My 60 Memorable Games, but I think the only versions in print are the algebraic Batsford edition and a Sam Sloan reprint of the Russian edition. I haven't seen it, but I'm going to guess that the Russian edition uses algebraic as well.... Quale (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Somebody might easily watch the Queen's Gambit, think "I'll go get a chess book and learn a bit more", and pick up an old Reinfeld or Horowitz book at their friendly local second hand shop. They don't know what those symbols mean so they come here to look it up.... and they don't find it. Let's at least mention it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be at least mentioned. It was the standard in English speaking countries for a long time. And precisely because it is descriptive, people with only a vague idea of chess will have perhaps heard of "knight to bishop three" or whatever and want to look it up.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, mention them, but they are covered in other articles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Subsections for castling, pawn promotion, and en passant capture

I have already explained, in an earlier edit summary, why separate subsections are justified for these topics. It seems obvious that these sections are too long, and too important, for MOS:OVERSECTION to be applicable. If you disagree with this assessment, you should use this talk page to start a discussion and get consensus. I would add that there have been separate subsections for a long time, probably since the article became FA. It was not my understanding that the splitting out of these subsections was a motivation of FA review. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that they are OK as they are (separate subsections), but I think that there are two viable alternatives: (1) cover promotion and en passant along with the move of the pawn and castling along with the king move. (2) a section (or subsection under Movement) of "Special rules", and cover them there.

I do not agree with removing them, as someone did, at one time. But the vast majority of games have castling. en passant doesn't occur very often, but it is a fundamental way the pawn captures. Promotion is very important. For a game that goes to goes to a decisive conclusion, pretty much there is either a checkmate in the middlegame or a promotion (or threat of promotion) in the endgame. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:OVERSECTION is not about how important the themes are. It is clear that everything we include should be very important - or it should be excluded. The point is readibility and comprehensibility of the article. The sections are very short and can be easily merged with the description of the moves of kings / pawns. Therefore we should do it and not clutter the page with many short segtions.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Moreover exactly this was one of the initial concerns of John M Wolfson to start the FA review (see section #FA concerns above). It is a clear break of Wikipedia MOS.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for not recognizing earlier that this topic was brought up in the original FA review, and for not responding to it at the time. A very serious omission on my part. And, I acknowledge that you are taking the advice of an experienced Wikipedia editor.

So I'm arguing with both that editor and yourself. I'm going to restate my arguments:

• Castling, en passant, and promotion are important topics in teaching chess to beginners. One can see this by glancing at any textbook.
• Wikipedia has separate articles about castling, en passant, and promotion, and we are citing them using the "Main" template.
• The sections on castling, en passant, and promotion are already subsections of the section on Movement. One could say that they are already "merged in".

I would add that I am not happy with the sections on "Check" and "End of the game", and I think that this topic has come up in earlier discussions in this talk page (in the archives, somewhere). "Check" does not need a section at the same level as "Movement". I am not sure it even needs a subsection, but one could argue about that. "End of the game" is too long and disorganized. The old "Win" and "Draw" subheaders were not terribly helpful, so thanks for clearing the deck, but we need some better emphasis. The most important concept, and the most difficult for beginners, is "checkmate", and it should be explained along with "stalemate". All the other ways of winning and drawing are obvious and/or minor, and are hardly worth two sentences together. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Place in Culture

It may now seem that the photo of a chess player in the Jardins du Luxembourg is not relevant to the section where it is placed. But when the photo was placed there, the section was called "Place in Culture", and it was a perfectly natural place to put the photo. I am going to restore the photo. The photo itself was a recent, and constructive, addition to the article. If you think that the photo does not go well with the new title of the section, "Connections", then consider fixing the title. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your care about the image, Bruce, but MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." This image is primarily decorative and does not fit with the theme of the paragraph where it is placed - the text is about the Age of Enlightenment, not about public spaces in big cities. Moreover the whole article is very image/diagram heavy and we need to think about how to reduce the distraction for readers. Therefore the image should go away.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It is reasonable to be concerned about the article becoming "image/diagram heavy". One of the FA review comments complained about "gallery sections", and you have addressed that. It would be possible to go even further; in particular, do we really need so many photos of historical famous chess players (Philidor, Steinitz, Anand vs. Kramnik, Kasparov)?

But we do not have a photo of a tournament scene, although millions of people have played in tournaments. Nor do we have a photo of an outdoor "giant chess set" (i.e. with pieces that are the size of people and have to be carried from square to square), although these are well-known and popular. Outdoor chess tables, such as those in the Jardin du Luxembourg or in New York's Washington Square Park, are also well-known. By the way, I think that the present photo of the guy in the Jardin du Luxembourg is not ideal -- it doesn't show much of the park or of the other people and tables. But it could be replaced rather than removed.

I have browsed through other articles about sports: Basketball, Association football, Hockey, Cricket. Compared to these we are almost starved of images. I admit that Contract bridge only has a few illustrations, and Poker even fewer; but those articles are not as well-developed as Chess. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It is true, there are thousands and thousands of interesting pictures we could sport here. But we should observe MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, this is the key concern here. And I agree with you that we should delete at least the photo Anand vs. Kramnik per MOS:IMAGES#Image quality because the faces of players are too small to be seen clearly.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus

@Ioannes Pragensis: It is outrageous that, after an inconclusive discussion at User Talk:MaxBrowne2, you have assumed that you have gotten consensus to make a major change in the organization of the article. I didn't even see that discussion, and neither did any other interested editors -- do you think we all watch each other's talk pages?

May I remind you of WP:OWN. We are your collaborators and peers. Please show some respect for fellow editors. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I very much appeciate, that you feel that you are my collaborator and peer, Bruce. Thank you for the words. And I surely feel respect for everybody who sacrifices his or her time to help Wikipedia.

But please take into account that the subject of a discussion here can be all sorts of things relevant to the article, but not sourced facts and rules of Wikipedia. For example if this article is about the game that is ruled by FIDE and of which Magnus Carlsen is the current World Champion, then the assertions that the notation is not a part of rules of the game or that the game is played since 6th century or that MOS:OVERSECTION does not cover explanation of important chess rules (see above) are misleading at best, and not a subject of a collaboration or voting of peers. Have a nice day,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I gather, then, that you are the one who decides what is to be subject of collaboration, and what is not? If other editors disagree with you about these matters, they are just wrong? Bruce leverett (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Everybody can suggest a relevant theme here and you know it very well. But it has no sense to discuss questions here, which are already decided (the case of known facts) or which should be discussed elsewhere if need be (the case of rules of Wikipedia).Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Notation and rules

The explanation of Notation has been moved within the section on Rules. This is not a good choice.

This content dispute was first discussed at User talk:MaxBrowne2#Notation. I cannot fully summarize that discussion here, readers may go there if they want to see.

Chess manuals never try to explain notation as part of explaining the rules. For example, the currently popular English-language book Chess for Dummies doesn't explain notation until about chapter 20. Many chess players are intimidated by notation or otherwise uninterested.

User:Ioannes Pragensis correctly notes that the FIDE rules of chess refer to notation, and include an explanation of algebraic notation in an appendix. Players in FIDE-sanctioned over-the-board games at slow time controls are expected to keep notation. But this is very much the exception. Even in FIDE-sanctioned play, notation is not required at fast ("blitz") time controls or in online play. The great majority of chess games are not sanctioned by any major governing body, and the great majority of players do not know chess notation. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree w/ Max & Bruce. Secs "Notation" & "Time control" don't belong as subsecs to "Rules". Neither does the next sec, "Variants", which makes no sense, even given Progensis's argument that the article thrust is current FIDE rules. (How are variants part of that? Variants are chess-like games, they aren't chess, they aren't FIDE chess, though some borrow FIDE rules, while others do not. NOT LOGICAL to have it as subsec under "Rules". Prevoiusly it was it's own sec. That was a correct choice.) --IHTS (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Adjustments  Done. --IHTS (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that variants are not simply a variation of the rules, so they shouldn't be under the rules section. The USCF and correspondence chess do have slight variations of the FIDE rules. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Notation is part of current FIDE chess rules. Other variants of rules may differ, but the official rules are written in this way.

In any case, the article should be logical - you should better not use the notation first (in the chapter about chess theory) and then explain it later. And I think that notation does not feel happy in the chapter Organized competition, because it was developed hudreds years before the tournaments and World Championsips started - its primary use was to record memorable games and variants and to communicate chess theory. So it is more connected with the theory. But because it is a part of the current rules of chess, it should be better placed there.

About chess variants: nobody says that they are simply variations of the rules. But their definition is that they are games somehow similar to mainstream chess, but with different rules. I think that they do not deserve a full chapter of the highest level here - it is better to include them somewhere and the chapter Rules is the first candidate for it.Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

For once and for all, FIDE is not the lord and dictator of all things chess. It is simply common sense that notation and chess variants do not belong in a description of the rules. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I see IHTS moved it to the "Organized competition" section. I think it's better having its own section, probably right after the rules section. I don't see this as a violation of MOS:OVERSECTION because it's neither an inherent part of the rules (you can play chess without knowing notation just as you can speak a language without being able to read it) nor is it only something that applies to formal competition (it's used in chess books). It really is something independent of either rules or competition. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Organized competition" has indeed grown rather large. I agree with Ioannes Pragensis that "Notation" does not belong here, and I would be OK with the suggestion by MaxBrowne2 that Notation should have its own section. But also: (1) "Composition" does not belong here, although it mentions WFCC; I suggest it should have its own section. Perhaps WFCC doesn't need to be mentioned in this article; it is well covered in the "Main article", Chess problem. (2) "Computer chess" does not belong here, although it mentions the NACCC and WCCC. Again, I suggest it should have its own section, and the NACCC and WCCC don't have to be mentioned in this article. (3) I am even slightly uncomfortable with having "Time control" here, inasmuch as I have played zillions of blitz games that were not part of any organized competition. But I'd be willing to let it stay here, if we could not agree on a better place for it. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

My editsum on the mv was "better", not "best". Agree w/ both Max & Bruce. Move to an even better article location. --IHTS (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting that speed chess/blitz chess/5-minute chess do not occur anywhere in the current article. Even tho am aware tons of players, when you add up their hours in play, have essentially comparatively devoted their lives to it. (It's an often-used fundamental training ground to get in tons of games, Fischer used it that way too. But it's not even mentioned in article.) --IHTS (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think we have consensus to give notation its own section. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "Composition", I should not have suggested that WFCC does not need to be mentioned here. However, I still think that "Composition" should have its own section, as it used to.

Regarding "Computer chess", likewise, I should not have suggested that NACCC and WCCC do not need to be mentioned here. However, likewise, "Computer chess" should have its own section.

"Organized competition" used to be called "Competitive play". The name change was good. But it looks pretty silly to have a subsection called "Organization of competitions". How about "Governance and competitions"? Bruce leverett (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Composition and Computer chess should be in the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Under "Organized competition" (is "Organized competitions" better?), subsec title "Governance" w/ be sufficient (non-redundant). --IHTS (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

How can we have a rules section that doesn't describe castling, promotion and en passant?

This isn't "simplification", it's mutilation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

These are extremely important things to be able to look up. One constantly hears questions like, "do you play en passant?", "is castling allowed in this position?", "can I promote to a queen if I already have a queen?". I am guessing that these were accidentally omitted, but before restoring them, I'd like to hear from the person that did it. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

They are the very rules that casual players often don't know properly, and for which they may consult the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

They may not need subheadings, but they do need to be described in the "movement" section if the subsections are removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• These are absolutely essential rules. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chess/archive4. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

To be honest I'd be happy to see the whole article restored to its previous state. This is wholesale deletionism. I don't care about FA status that much, there's no hurry. The article was already pretty good and was going through gradual improvements. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I also returned the chapters I deleted, but I perserve the structure and the intro - both is imho clearly better than the previous state. Let me know, whether you are ok with this, and then we can perhaps slowly proceed and discuss the specific problems one by one.Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's still way too many changes to take in in one go. The article was not in such a dire state that it needed such a radical approach. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Look please here, MaxBrowne2: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chess/archive4 - there is a consensus of experienced editors, that the article was indeed in a bad state. Including the bloated text and a suboptimal structure, which both commands rather radical means.Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I read from User:Piotrus's description at all. Yes he raised specific concerns about referencing and coverage, but he didn't say it was a bad article, he didn't advocate taking a machete to it, and he didn't advocate introducing such a bewildering number of radical changes over such a small space of time without discussion or consensus. I am not ok with this at all. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

MaxBrowne2, I haven't reviewed changes in detail, but my main point was that there is a lot of unreferenced content that needs to be referenced, second that some existing references are low quality or pure OR (like saying 'this is a key source' and citing only that source, which means that calling it 'key' is ORish editorializing). My third criticism is that the article is not comprehensive and doesn't sufficiently address many important issues that need to be expanded upon (or even simply mentioned). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No, "key square" has a specific meaning, see key square. That isn't OR or editorializing. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Bubba73, I didn't mean that term. I was referring to this. I see that ORish section was removed, good. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess I don't see what you mean, because Pritchard is the best source for chess variations. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 08:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Bubba73, Best source according to whom? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It is common knowledge. Everyone knows that. If you dispute it, what source is better? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Delisted

Hopefully that will take the pressure off so that people don't feel the necessity to make massive changes to what was already a pretty good article. I am still not ok with the way things have happened, especially the over-riding of consensus in the reorganization of the article and the wholesale deletion of sourced material. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Delisting it is fine with me. A lot better than gutting a good article just so it pleases FA people. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Il meglio è l'inimico del bene — Voltaire. ;) --IHTS (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The cup is half full. A creative and skilled new editor got involved with this article. Over time, one might hope, collaboration will get smoother. Sorry that I threw around an accusation of "edit war" -- that kind of language should be reserved for the drama boards. I'll be more patient next time. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Do u mean Pragensis? (If so, take a look at his Talk - he did some heavy lifting in 2007 re Chess article FAR.) --IHTS (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Years active" in the infobox

The infobox has given the date of "6th century" for many years. None of our sources, such as Murray, give a date of "15th century". Most of chess literature refers the game played since about the 6th century as "chess", not as a predecessor of chess. As Wikipedia editors, we are not expected to decide when the historical boundary between the present game and "predecessors" lies, but to let our sources dictate to us where the boundary is.

Changing the date in the infobox is a major change in content. It is not motivated by FA review (the article has been FA for many years with the old version of the date). The article includes several paragraphs about the history of chess, in which the game as played prior to the 15th century is described as chess, not as a predecessor to chess. The infobox must not contradict the main body of the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A game with some pieces that move like the modern pieces started about the 6th century. The game evolved. About the 15th century, there were a couple of changes that made it close to modern chess. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a bright line definition issue. No doubt chaturanga had its antecedents too, but are they defined as "chess"? Castellvi-Vinoles is comprehensible to modern players as "chess" but I doubt very much that modern rules about castling, pawn promotion, stalemate etc were applicable. The change in the queen and bishop moves did alter the character of the game substantially. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The theme of the article is currently defined as the standard FIDE chess in the intro and in the chapter Rules. Western chess commenced in 15th century, which is sourced in the section History. The word "chess" has also another meanings, that is "a game from the chess family of games" or "the chess family of games", and for these meanings 6th century would be OK, but it is not the theme of this article. If we would agree on the 6th century, then we should rewrite the article thoroughly to include rules and history of chatranj, chaturanga and many other games.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence in the History section starts, "Chess is believed to have originated in northwest India, in the Gupta Empire (c. 280–550)". This is plain enough language -- how can anyone mistake it? Later in the section we refer to "The earliest evidence of chess ...", "The oldest archaeological chess artifacts ...", and "al-Adli ar-Rumi (800–870), a renowned Arab chess player". In the "Arts and humanities" subsection, we mention the book by de Cessolis, and we show the painting of noble chess players from Germany, both from the 1300's; and we cite the 209th song from Carmina Burana, 13th century. It doesn't make sense to say that the "theme of the article" excludes all these. When you claim that the "theme of the article" excludes pre-15th-century chess, are you relying on some guidance from the Manual of Style or elsewhere that I am neglecting?

I admit that the rules changes to introduce the "mad queen" were important, and the rules changes involving castling and en passant capture, which were standardized only in the 19th century, were also important; and if you don't think we are covering those sufficiently, feel free to tinker with the relevant sections of the article. But problems by al-Adli are still being published in magazine articles as chess problems. If we claim that they aren't chess, we're causing confusion. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I admit that English is not my first language, but the sentence "Chess is believed to have originated in northwest India, in the Gupta Empire (c. 280–550)" does not mean the same as "Chess is believed to have been finished in northwest India...". Origins of chess were not very similar to chess in the today's sense and no chess problem from 6th century could be published as chess problem today (chaturanga was a game for 4 players with very different rules). The assertion that chess (in the sense of the main theme of the article) exists since 6th century is simply false.Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I tried to look at the four cited sources for that sentence. I found something by Bird online, but have not found anything by him that backs this sentence. I don't have easy access to Leibs or to Estes & Robinson. In Murray, I find on page 27: "We must accordingly conclude that our European chess is a direct descendant of an Indian game played in the 7th century with substantially the same arrangement and method as in Europe five centuries later, ..." Clearly, he's not talking about a 4-player game.

At the same time, he's not talking about the 6th century, he's talking about the 7th. I think that we are making some error here, such as confusing chaturanga with chess, but I would need to look at the other sources before trying to correct the error.

According to Murray, the game played in the 7th century was the the same as that played by al-Adli and others, generally similar to modern chess. It is unwarranted to use "15th century" as a starting date, as it goes against Murray, but since I haven't looked at Leibs or at Estes & Robinson, I will not try to correct it just yet. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The game from 7th century is probably shatranj, called "chess" before the expansion of the current game. Already quite similar to it (as you wrote, some of the old shatranj puzzles work even under chess rules, because rooks and knights move similarly), but by far not the same. Try to play a shatranj game with a friend and you'll see the difference.Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I have found copies of (the cited pages of) Leibs, Estes & Robinson, Murray, and Bird online. Here is my assessment -- other editors are welcome to correct me:

• Murray sums up the origin of chess, 7th century, "NW India", on pages 26 and 27, but there are some later pages with more details. Note that when he was writing, what is now Pakistan was still part of India. So does "NW India" mean modern-day Pakistan? Judging from later pages, in which he mentions Sri Harsha of Kannauj, I think he had in mind more the "Indian" part of north India.
• Estes & Robinson has only 27 pages, and nothing about chess. Even if there is a page 34 and it's about chess, this doesn't look like a reliable source on chess history.
• Bird is quite a gathering of historical sources, but page 63 is not relevant to the history of chess. I did not see another page in which Bird tried to give a conclusive summary of the early history. But his claim that some ancient Roman texts mentioned "Chess" suggests to me that his criteria of what constitutes "chess" are not very strict.
• Leibs summarizes the pre-medieval history briefly and gives no sources. His "6th century" contradicts Murray, which is interesting, but I don't see anything to substantiate that.

Bruce leverett (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Added later:

• "Estes & Robinson" was written by Robinson, illustrated by Estes. I found page 34 by the usual devious trickery with Google Books, but this is not a useful reference, nor should it be in our bibliography. It is a book full of art projects. It is not a secondary source for chess history. On page 34 it mentions that chess came from India, and that's all. I have removed that citation, and removed that bibliography entry.
• I have replaced the URL for Murray with the URL for the Google Books version, which has all the pages.
• Bird has a summary of the earliest origins of chess that does not contradict Murray's, but I do not have a version of Bird that has authentic page numbers, so I will assume that the page number of 63 is correct. As a reference, Bird is more or less superseded by Murray, but it's fun to look through Bird, so I do not have any problem with keeping that citation.
• Murray's dating of chess to the 7th century was authoritative when he published it (1913). It is conceivable that Leibs knows of some source, found since 1913, which would push the date back to the 6th century; but as I said above, I don't see any substantiation of that.
• The Gupta empire was kaput by 543 CE. So it isn't safe to claim that chess originated under that empire.

Bruce leverett (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Bruce. Bird can be 86'ed. He wrote a lot of stuff about the history of chess that was simply wrong, and history was not his specialty. Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting a highly unreliable source. Thanks for killing the Gupta Empire claim as well. I was always wary of that since I've never seen it in any source. I hoped that someone actually had a source that substantiated the claim, but I'm sure it's textbook WP:SYNTH and I'm glad you canned it. Your other changes were good too. Quale (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Tournament

The section "Organized competitions" should say something about what a chess tournament is. There should be at least a Wikilink to Chess tournament, and a photo of a tournament, such as TataSteelChess2019-11.jpg. I am not sure what other information to add. I think this will be in a subsection, "Tournaments". I am also wondering whether one should try to define "match", especially to differentiate it from "game". Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I stuck my neck out a bit here but it's annoying when journalists and scriptwriters can't get the distinction between a "game" and a "match". My hope is that some journalist, somewhere, will read this article and change his copy to read "game" instead of "match". Well, that's my fantasy anyway. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The rules

I've restored the old version of the rules, pre-FA panic, because I honestly don't think there was much wrong with them at the time. Incremental improvements can be made of course, but there was simply no need for the cut and slash. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I object to your undoing of my most recent change. Any beginner's book teaches checkmate and stalemate first, before mentioning things like resignation or draw by agreement or the 50-move rule. It is just lazy for us to organize those parts the way they are now. Do you disagree? Bruce leverett (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No, go ahead and restore anything you think were improvements post Jan 2021. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a description of check should be under the subheading "end of the game". Check is a normal part of the game, and often quite harmless. Black is hardly in dire trouble after 1.e4 d6 2.Bb5+ for example. Not that it's wikipedia's job to instruct beginners, but putting check under the "end of the game" heading will tend to cement in their mind the "never miss a check" nonsense. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It is true that it's a normal part of the game. But I thought that explaining it, without at the same time explaining the importance of the king, does not make sense. And when you explain the importance of the king, all of a sudden you're explaining the end of the game. So check and checkmate are yoked together in the same subsection. Before January, we were explicitly explaining "the object of the game" before the section entitled "End of the game". Now that it's all one subsection, if it would help, one could fiddle with the title of the subsection, or the order in which it is presented, or whatever. You are right about "never miss a check" -- if there were a way to warn the reader away from that, we might be doing the world a favor. But I suppose that we should not pollute the "Rules" section with discussion of "Tactics and Strategy". Bruce leverett (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

FA review - remaining problems

Dear friends, regarding the concerns in FA review: I suppose that we solved the introduction and the overall structure of the article (MOS:OVERSECTION). But there are still open problems. Allow me to repeat theme here in order to have them in one place.

Citations and MOS

• There are many uncited paragraphs in the "Rules" section (John M Wolfson) - IP: I would add that the existing citations there should be more specific and cite the appropriate chapter of FIDE rules.

• There are several uncited paragraphs and paragraph-ending sentences in the "History" section (John M Wolfson)

• problems with prose/MoS - too many short paragraphs in some places, for example (Piotrus)

• insufficient referencing like citing books without citing a page range (Piotrus)

• badly formatted references (and several references to youtube or blogs) (Piotrus)

Content / comprehensiveness

• the article lacks information about the use of chess to study military tactics (Piotrus)

• the article seems not to be comprehensive (Piotrus)

• not covered at all: chess and military, chess and board games
• covered too superficially (chess in popular culture, online chess)

• mentioned only in the lead and not in the body at all (online chess) - IP: he speaks about the former version of the lead, but the coverage of online chess is still open

• The reference to the mini-series "The Queen's Gambit", so recently added as a result of a semi-protected edit request, has been removed. (Bruce leverett) - IP: It is because I removed it, but if you wish, it can return - I am only not sure whether it is important enough to be there since it is a quite new work and it is hard to predict whether it will be known in 2031 or not.
  • I think the series should be mentioned but the coverage should not go beyond 1-2 sentences. But it should be part of the section that discusses major works of culture that are chess-themed ([1] etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• chess culture/chess and culture theme is not covered well (Piotrus)

So this is the program for now, if we wish to make the article better (I do not say to save the FA status, because this is not so much important and is very hard, but it would be nice to achieve, too).Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The paragraphs on rules can be referenced to the FIDE rulebook. See wp:Anyone can edit and wp:Fixit. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I would have to ask User:Piotrus for pointers to reliable sources where I might learn about notable connections between chess and military matters. I am not aware of any, but I would be happy to work with whatever there is.

This work by User:Ioannes Pragensis has made some significant improvements. But several content disputes have arisen, see the previous sections of this talk page. I regret that he has not sought consensus, but has gone down the path of the edit war. I am at a loss for how to proceed. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how connections between chess and the military belongs in this article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Bruce leverett, For example, try the following academic articles: Use of chess in military education, THE USE OF CHESS IN MILITARY MATTERS. I'd also suggest consulting a book like [2] which notes that "Chess is far more than just a game. Its rules and pieces have served as a metaphor for society. It has appeared in the writings of Borges, Nabokov, Tolstoy, Canetti, Eliot, to name just a few. It has helped form the military strategies that conquered civilisations, influenced the mathematical understandings that have driven technological change, and served as a moral guide. It has been condemned by Popes as the devil's game, yet presidents have used it to promote diplomacy." Our article, right now, treats chess as a game with only few short paragraphs about the other aspects. It needs to discuss them much more. I used military as only one of many examples of chess influence on culture and society that need discussion here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

OK. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment

Has chess really been used to study military tactics? I remember an amusing letter to the editor in an old Chess Life pointing out that the military tactic of sending the infantry (pawns) into battle first is an utterly suicidal strategy in war, yet this is the usual way to open chess games. Chess, the letter argued, should be viewed as a naval battle where pawns are scouting destroyers while the queen is an aircraft carrier. My point is, chess is a game of strategy and tactics but not a realistic real war simulation. Chess is no more relevant to real military strategy than Ticket to Ride is to real railroad construction planning. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Sjakkalle, In case you didn't see my reply above - well, it addresses your concerns. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sjakkalle: That's surely a letter I want to read! ;) Double sharp (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Introduction to chess

I created a new draft page called "Introduction to chess": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Introduction_to_chess

This idea is from the comment made on Jan 15, 2021: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Chess/archive4

I am not a (very) active Wikipedia editor, so I won't be working on it much, but I thought this was a good idea for an article.  AltoStev ^Talk 17:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Chess origin

An edit by User:Cazaux in the "Predecessors" section has been reverted twice, once by me and once by User:Pawnkingthree. User Cazaux has started a discussion on my talk page at User Talk:Bruce leverett#Chess Origin. I am moving the discussion here.

This user is a published author on the history of chess, using his own name as his Wikipedia identity (as I do). One of his works, which he has cited in his edit, is a book, A World of Chess, McFarland, 2017.

I reverted his change because it seemed to me that the judgment as to whether a source is a reliable source cannot credibly be made by the author of that source. However, I myself am not prepared to make that judgment either (I don't have a copy of the book, and I am not an experienced scholar of the history of chess). So I am not sure how to make progress with this, and I welcome suggestions as to how to proceed.

If there are other problems with the edit, besides the question of sourcing, please bring them up as well. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

One thing I do know is that McFarland is very highly regarded as a publisher of books on chess history. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I should have thought of that; I have several McFarland books on my shelf.

In this article, on the topic of the origin of chess, we see attempts every few months by would-be editors to promote their own nationality, or their favorite nationality, as the source of the original invention of chess. I resolve not to treat User:Cazaux as one of those, but to proceed more cautiously.

Wikipedia's own guidance as to how to handle competing theories is summarized in WP:NPOV, and the sections entitled "Due and undue weight", "Good research", and "Balance" are relevant here. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure I can take part in this debate which is largely dealing with my own case. Well, I'm not so familiar with the rules of WP which are indeed very strict. Not only the reference I had made to my book has been removed, but also the full text I had composed has been reverted. And reverted twice for the reason of I had used "a non-reliable source". I understand the reasons why WP must remain independent of commerce, but it is true that then it is difficult for someone to share the knowledge he has acquired as soon as he become an author. I recommended yesterday to a friend preparing a book, to quickly publish on his field on WP because when he will have his book published it will be too late. A paradoxal situation. Someone with no specific knowledge can contribute on WP, but someone who has worked many years on the field cannot do it because he became an author and then he is suspect. I don't pretend that the book I wrote during 6 years with Rick Knowlton, in co-operation with many experts and historians from all over the world and all types of opinion, is good. It is not to me to say. But reading that this work is a "unreliable source" by people who have admitted not having look at it is a bit tough. Even if I try to contain my ego, I should say that I was really upset. I plan to present again the small text I had made. This time I will come back with the primary references I used for my book, Antonio Panaino, Andreas Bock-Raming, Renate Syed, Peter Banaschak, Denis Leventhal, Jim Png, etc. My purpose was indeed to say that the origin of chess is a very controversial issue, that several places have serious claims, India, Persia, China, Central Asia, explaining why. The story is much more complex than saying chess is born in India or in China or anywhere full stop. I am convinced that WP should be sensitive to this kind of discussion which puts the things in perspective. And this is why this full story is fascinating and why I love to study it and share it as much as I can in books, conferences, and I hope one day on the WP media too. Cazaux (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the present treatment ("It's from India") is unsatisfying. My impression, in reading Murray, was that in the ancient manuscripts he had read, the Persians had acknowledged that they had gotten it from India, but beyond that, he had no trail to follow. If there is tangible evidence that has come to light in the last 100 years, that would be welcome.

Generally speaking, in this introductory article, one should summarize rather than give a lot of detail. Contrary to what I said in earlier edit summaries, you should go ahead and cite your own book, giving chapter and verse, using it as a reliable reference. If you mention a competing theory, cite an authority for it as well. As you can see, we even mention the Chinese origin theory by Li, if only to mention the assessment of it by Banaschak, because a few years ago Li was too popular to ignore.

We do not cite a reference for our claim that chess "spread eastward and westward along the Silk Road". We also mention archaeological findings of chess artifacts, without citing a reference to support that. If your book discusses these things, feel free to cite chapter and verse.

I should add that our one sentence about the Libro de los Juegos is unsatisfying, and whatever you have to say about it, if you have read it, is much better than nothing. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"Chess originated in Northern India in the 7th century" has become the "orthodoxy which may not be challenged" ever since Murray, but as Cazaux has pointed out it's not that simple at all, as any examination of the actual evidence will show. References to chess/xiangqi/chaturanga in Indian, Chinese, Persian etc manuscripts from that period are sparse, and it's not always clear what game they are referring to or whether it's related to chess, let alone what the rules are.

We've had bad experiences in this area in the past, e.g. dealing with an Iranian nationalist who used disreputable sources to push his agenda. We've also had pro-Chinese origin people pushing their POV. Naturally we're wary, but Cazaux is an acknowledged subject matter expert and should not be treated in this way. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• A suggestion - perhaps Cazaux could make incremental edits to the article History of chess and introduce the new sources that way? Wikipedians tend to freak out a bit when a huge edit is made to an established high traffic article like chess. We've got a better chance of reaching a satisfactory consensus at History of chess, then we can summarise the important points of that article in the history section of the chess article.

• I will look to the article History of chess too. Here, I have proposed again a new text, in my opinion, giving more insights, although purposely compact and not detailed. I have avoided to refer to my own works except at one moment when I state than a Chinese ancestry should not be rejected too fast (although I regret that so far some defenders of this theory have spoiled it with their exaggerated nationalistic bias). Because, indeed, this is widely developed in our book, and it is our original analysis and contribution not found elsewhere as far as I know. It is exposed not in few lines but in about 20 pages. But if this is not acceptable, it can be removed, I will understand. There is another reference to my own website but it existed before and I'm not the author of it.

I have moved the reference to the Libro de los Juegos few lines below because I also think it was not well located. Hope all this is useful. If it is removed again, I will accept and I will give up.Cazaux (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• My new attempt has not lasted more than a couple of hours. It has been reverted by someone presenting himself as fighting against vandalism. The reasons given are "Reverted good faith edits by Cazaux (talk): Please add page numbers to the sources. Also, there is incorrect synthesis of material in the text (which is original research"

I just don't understand what's wrong. Why an "incorrect synthesis"? I hope someone with more experience than me with WP will be able to improve this part of the chess entry. I give up.Cazaux (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

user:Cazaux, I understand your reaction, but hope you will check back in here later. Wikipedia is edited by all sorts of people, grinding all sorts of axes, and communicating in very different tonalities. Sometimes dust need a little time to settle.

It is a bit unusual for an editor to cite his/her own work here. There may even be a policy against it; I am not sure. But being an expert should not disqualify anyone as editor! I'm not sure if this advice is applicable here, but if you could cite your sources instead of citing your book, it might be better. But that also depends on the nature of your sources - e.g., it should be better to cite a scholarly monography or peer-reviewed overview article, say, than to cite an ancient text directly (unless you need to actually quote the text).--Nø (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull:@Nø: Let's look at the most recent attempt by the author to edit the article, in detail.

• He adds some discussion of the ancient Persian and Sanskrit manuscripts on which both he and Murray relied, with citations of some secondary sources, not including his own work. I do not see a problem with this, either due to synthesis, or due to the author citing his own work.
• He adds an observation about the locations of archaeological finds of chess artifacts, again citing a secondary source, not his own work.
• Where the article mentioned al-Adli's chess manual, he adds a citation of Murray. This is a straightforward edit -- we should have added that citation long ago. (But the citation should give a page number.)
• He modifies the discussion of the relation of Xiangqi to chess, and to support the modification, he includes a citation of the 20-page section of his book that discusses that topic. Here is where one may reasonably wonder one should have tried to find an editor with a detached perspective to render judgment. But "being an expert should not disqualify anyone as editor". Can we reach agreement on how to proceed with this particular edit? I will discuss this some more below.
• He moves the discussion of Libro de los juegos from the "Predecessors" section to the "Origins of the modern game" section. This move is correct and should have been done long ago.
• He adds some discussion of differences between Arabic and European chess (prior to 15th century), citing Murray. This citation should give a page number -- I can say that because I have recently spent some time adding page numbers to citations of Murray in this article and in History of chess. But I don't see a problem of synthesis or of the author citing his own work.
• He modifies the discussion of where the "modern" rules began to be used and how they were diffused through Europe in the late 15th century. He doesn't change the citations here (to Davidson and Calvo); I think he is just trying to more clearly paraphrase Calvo.

It looks to me like quite a lot of baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. This is why it is good practice to split a large edit into smaller pieces, so that skeptics can revert only what they really object to. I will restore the author's edit, and I will ask editors generally to respond to specific pieces of it instead of blowing it off.

Now as to the discussion of Xiangqi and chess. It is indeed natural to wonder about the appropriateness of an author citing his own work. I initially was taken aback by this. Let me furnish a little background information.

His book was published three years ago. It seems likely to be a useful source -- the publisher is very reputable in chess circles, and there have been some good reviews, although I have not looked at the reaction of the scholarly community. However, no one from the usual lot of Wiki editors of chess-related articles has come forward to say they've read it. So we are in the awkward position of not having a straightforward way to make use of it. In the fullness of time, no doubt Wiki editors will emerge who can render neutral judgment on this work. I am not sure how long this will take.

On the topic of the origin of chess, we have been relying on H.J.R. Murray's book. This is an outstanding reference, and has aged well in the 100 years since it was published, but it is reasonable to suspect that more recent scholarship, and another perspective, will be helpful. Murray's book is nearly 1000 pages long, and almost no one has their own copy; we generally rely on an online version by Google books or some similar project. I am not sure if it is possible at present for a Wiki editor to easily access the new book without buying their own copy.

I should mention that the author has been a Wikipedia contributor since 2006, not frequently, but almost every year, usually on topics related to chess variants. I think that this author is indeed a "subject matter expert" on chess history and chess variants. Subject matter experts do not have free rein in Wikipedia, but it's nice to have one around. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I was kind of horrified to see him reverted yet again. No wonder people who actually know what they're talking about get frustrated and leave wikipedia. The editsum made some complaint about lack of page numbers.... isn't there a tag that can be used for that? Everyone please consider WP:ALTREV and WP:ONLYREVERT before reverting. This has to be one of the worst reverts I have seen on wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That was only one of their complaints, they also said it was synthesis and original research. Bruce the relevant guideline is WP:SELFCITE, part of the COI guideline. Basically it's ok within reason, and as we're discussing it on the talk page it should be ok. P-K3 (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

We also have Template:synthesis inline to highlight which specific areas the editor thinks are in breech of the policy, or he could have removed or edited those specific areas. Basically it's a bad idea to revert wholesale just because you're too lazy to consider the edit in its entirety and keep the elements of it that actually do improve the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Cazaux: Enormous apologies to you and MaxBrowne2. The only thing I could even use as an excuse is honestly just pure laziness. I hope that didn't cause too much of a hassle but the revert and subsequent discussion seem like I have done some damage. I am very sorry. Wretchskull (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Completely disagree with this

This edit is ugly. We are writing an introduction to chess, not a legal document. There is nothing "ambiguous" about the wording as it was before. Use plain English. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay. How about "...and the king has no legal moves"? This is not very informative, but at least it's precise. What do you say? Obviously, I still prefer my version, which is both informative and precise, but I'm willing to settle on a compromise. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Nvm, Bruce's version just solves world hunger. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That edit has too many words and is overly detailed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

End of game section

It was far better before the mad and ultimately futile rush to retain Featured Article status. Simple structure - ways games end in a win, and ways games end in a draw. I suggest we restore the section as it stood then. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't directly compared, but I think you are right - based on my memory of the changes at that time. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Describing castling

I think that is pretty common to refer to the ranks from the point of view of either player, whichever is convenient. For instance we say "Black's rook on the seventh is strong", not "rook on the second". So I think that the old description of castling was OK.

However it would be possible to write "... moves the king two squares from its original square toward one of the rooks", which might even be better? Bruce leverett (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm amazed that Maxipups appears to be completely unaware of this concept. The decline of descriptive notation, perhaps? That is a totally unnecessary edit, another example of this editor being too wordy.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ways to win and ways to draw

I was the last one to reorganize the section about "End of the game". My intention was to put checkmate/stalemate first, as they should be regarded as the "main" ways to win or draw, and all the others make sense only in the context provided by those two. That explains the word "also" in these two sentences: "Games can also be won in the following ways: ", and "There are also several ways games can end in a draw: "

If the word "also" is not enough to clarify what I was trying to do, go ahead and try some other method. Just adding "other", as in the first attempt, looks a little redundant. But if you think that a little more verbosity is required, I'm not alarmed. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Stalemate is actually pretty rare. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Some rules specify that the game is immediately terminated and subsequent moves are null and void. These rules are checkmate, stalemate, dead position, fivefold repetition and 75 move rule. (So technically, making a move on the board with only K+N v K is illegal). Others require a claim or agreement; these are draw by agreement, threefold repetition and 50 move rule. Separating out checkmate, stalemate and dead position from the other ways a game may end is probably inifluenced by this concept, but a more commonsense way to classify game endings is simply by the result, wins and draws. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

My observation was that checkmate and stalemate are non-trivial concepts to teach to beginners. They want to capture the king. It's counterintuitive that you aren't supposed to capture the king. So I wanted to teach those concepts first, and together. The old text at least had the virtue of teaching checkmate first.

Needless to say, I don't want to WP:OWN this material. But if you restored the old version, I would be tempted to tweak it in two ways:

• Put checkmate first, rather than second, in the list of ways to win.
• Move the section about "Check" to be the first subsection of the section about "End of the game", rather than a separate section. With "Check" being a separate section, the reader who clicked on "End of the game" and started reading forwards would miss the sentence "The object of the game is to checkmate the king". Bruce leverett (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with including "check" under "end of game". Checks are prosaic and no big deal. Better to describe check and checkmate in a separate section then include checkmate "as described above" (or similar wording) in the list of ways a game can be won. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

We've been over this ground before. Go ahead and revert to the old version. I must be able to find more interesting things to worry about. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I won't proceed unless I feel there is consensus within the project on how to organize the rules section. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry that my last comment sounded so grudging. I think that your suggestion of using the phrase "as described above" or some such would adequately deal with the problem that I brought up about defining checkmate before saying that it wins the game. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree with putting checkmate first under "end of game" - it is the goal of the game. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

The origin of chess is wrongly put and the there is no modern chess or traditional , i think the editor have mistaken chaupat (indian board game) with the traditional indian chess 103.236.115.42 (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Etymology of checkmate

The article states the widely-believed view that checkmate means "the king is dead". But see this article - despite the title, it says (and I have also heard this elsewhere) that mat does not actually mean "dead" but "helpless". See also the article on Checkmate.

We are citing the Online Etymology Dictionary (Barnhart). The article on Checkmate cites Murray, which gives the same Persian origin. Murray says that chess reached Europe, from Persia, via the Arabs. Barnhart says that the Arabic shah mat, "the king is dead", was a "misinterpretation" of the Persian shah mat (or shah manand), "the king is helpless". The difference between the Arabic and Persion expressions is also mentioned in the first two sentences of Checkmate#Etymology.

The article on Checkmate is now in good shape, thanks to your recent edit. I think the article on Chess could cite either the Arabic meaning or the Persian meaning; readers who care about these things will look in Checkmate. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Digital clocks and blitz

"Digital clocks ... are more robust, making them suitable for blitz play."

The issue of robustness of clock mechanisms against heavy pounding in blitz games is (or was) a real one. Did digital clocks mark a step forward? It's plausible, but as User:MaxBrowne2 has mentioned, we would need a source.

Also, "suitable" is a relative term. Evidently the old mechanical mechanisms must have been "suitable", because they got used a lot for blitz, even though this was known to be a risk. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Still hearing that Polish accent yelling "No 5 minute bloody chess!" at us kids at the club.... but that's OR. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC) I actually think the increased popularity of blitz is more likely due to the rise of the internet than to digital clocks. What time controls do they use on ICC? Mostly blitz. Yes that's OR too. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

In what way is Blitz more popular than it used to be? Walter Browne started a Blitz organization several decades ago, and used to hold tournaments and even published a newsletter/magazine for a while. I don't know if there was any continuity between that and the current FIDE organized blitz, though. As you mentioned, informal chess is mostly blitz, and always has been at least since the first time I traveled to a tournament, in 1968. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Richard Reti

please change ((Richard Reti|Reti, Richard)) to ((Richard Réti|Réti, Richard)) 2601:541:4580:8500:ADB0:7517:667F:A919 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 23:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone know where the name comes from? Looks a bit French, but he had Hungarian ancestry and Hungarian doesn't use acute accents. Anyway the Hungarian, Czech and Slovak wikis all use the accent so we're probably safe. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: Of Jewish family, born in what is today Slovakia. Transcription of Yiddish (but é not common, Yiddish orthography#Transliteration), or Slovak language (where é is common)? Interestingly, from Rudolph Reti: "He was the older brother of the chess master Richard Réti, but unlike his brother, Reti did not write his surname with an acute accent on the 'e'."--Nø (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I take it back, apparently é is used in Hungarian to indicate a lengthened e, as it is in Czech and Slovak. Not an easy name to research, but I think it's Hungarian origin in this case. The same name is also found in Hindi, Indonesian, Samoan and Maori, presumably unrelated. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox - ((Playing time) field) missing information

On the internet, games can be much faster than 10 minutes.  AltoStev ^Talk 20:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Games often finish sooner than their time control, often much sooner, so when we quote a lower figure of 10 minutes here, we're clearly not giving an absolute lower limit. Is that your question?

Not so much the internet, but digital clocks, have changed things since this was written. We link to Fast chess. Going to that article and looking under "Blitz", I see this:

Three minutes with a two-second increment is preferred.

That is also the time control for the World Blitz Championship.

Now it gets interesting. The "10 minutes" we quote may have been written with the old style of blitz chess in mind: 5 minutes per game, no increment or delay. Most games would end before 10 minutes, but there was a hard upper limit of 10 minutes. There is no hard upper limit for a game played on increment. If a game played at 3 minutes, 2 second increment is still going after 10 minutes, the players must have played at least 60 moves so far, but that's all one can say.

So it is still okay for us to be saying "10 minutes"? Bruce leverett (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)