Talk:Chess

Chance element

Against "Random chance" the article states "None", yet also "Most players and theoreticians consider that White, by virtue of the first move, begins the game with a small advantage." So how is white chosen if not by random chance? (The fact that black and white may alternate is not relevant when considering a single game.) 86.179.6.55 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think they are talking about once the game has started there is no random chance. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the playing of chess involves both the calculation of probabilities of various opportunities plus the selection from them of an individual action there is certain to be a random chance factor involved with the selection when the probability factors become equal for the various alternatives, and particularly when a computer problem is involved.WFPM (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. "There's a 30% chance he moves the pawn, a 20% chance he moves the rook" ??? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Random chance usually refers to games with dice or cards, in chess there is perfect information, I see the same things as my opponent. There really is not chance in the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calcoolidgefan (talk • contribs) 04:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think User:WFPM means if a player or computer can't decide between two moves, they might mentally (or programmatically) "flip a coin". But that's still a measure of skill (human) or programming quality (computer). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WFPM said "Since the playing of chess involves both the calculation of probabilities of various opportunities...". I've been playing the game for 46 years and I've never calculated a probability. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about the computer programing process where the decisions about the next move (and sequence of moves) has to be quantified as to their relative merit. And then if we run into equal probability calculations, have to have a random selection process to chose which one to use. If not so there would never be any variation in the decision process, and you might as well play Tic-tac. And I'm quite sure that if you drive a car or play bridge or checkers you're always involved in probability calculations, some of which involve a high degree of differential equations calculations.WFPM (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Incidentally, I note that in computer chess you can take advantage of the computer program by letting it always be white and have the attack strategy responsibility while you merely develop a less demanding defensive strategy, and then by cheating by taking back your defective short term moves you can advance the end game to the basic strategy of the game, which seems to lie in the successful advancement of your pawns.WFPM (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been driving for 40+ years, I've played a little checkers for 50+ years, and I've been playing bridge for 28 years and I've never done a differential equation calculation for any of those. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WFPM, if you are talking about computers do a random percentage to choose between two equal good moves I think I agree with you. But it doesn't have anything with playing chess. This is just because computers don't have capacity to solve the hole game. In order to make any move, they run a program to choose the best moves and after sometime choose one by random between two or three probabilities. If computers didn't do that they would run forever an application or overload processing capacity with a huge three of probabilities. When we are talking about probality in chess means something like we will do the best move possible and the opponent will do the same. We don't calculate that opponent will do a inferior move because it increase his chances of winning and neither we won't do a bad one (e.g. lose the queen) because we have somehow calculate that we have statistically more chances of win. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And this kind of random choice between equal moves has nothing inherently to do with the game. You could just as well decide between equal moves by some non-random means, such as choosing by which destination (or starting) square is the first by the order of files or ranks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Chess is a competitive game related to a struggle for a dominant position of power You start out even and one side tries to achieve a more powerful position of action than the other. The calculation is always involved with achieving a superior position of power of action. A computer program is required to quantify the relative power status of position of the existing situation before each move, and then to move into another position with a numerically determined power of position value. This involves an evaluation of alternatives and their risk factor as far into the game future as the program is programmed to handle. Since a computer is less neurotic than a human it usually winds with a smaller repertoire than a human. However its ability remember and determine the power of position of a limited number of alternative moves is generally better, so a succesfull position has to be hidden to as far in the future of the game as is possible. There are also move variation calculations that are designed to truncate consideration of alternative moves in the matrix in a certain direction based upon the relative power condition of the two sides. But computer chess involves the moving within a matrix of possible positions, and therefore is more dependent on the basic strategy of the game of chess, whereas human chess is probably less orderly and structured.WFPM (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomad to Captain Kirk (after comparing Mr. Spock's brain scan to Lt. Uhura's): "This unit is different. It is well ordered." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It reminds me about debugging a computer program involved with the generating and utilizing of a "random number" as a process of the program. But when you're checking the program for errors you want it to generate the same random number, so you have to derandomize the program in order for it to do that.WFPM (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What you've written here might superficially seem to show deep insight into chess and computer programming to someone who isn't very experienced in either, but actually it is just more than a little confused compared to the true state of affairs in both. It's wrong on so many points that there really isn't a good place to begin to correct it. (Also, no one talks about "derandomizing" a program for testing. Usually just setting the PRNG seed to a specific value will suffice.) Quale (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a computer programmer and even a very good chess player, But I'm talking about the comparative logic of computer versus human chess playing. And maybe the attractiveness of chess is due to the human factor. And I'm not awed by you're trashing my "derandomizing" description as to the "seed" setting process, because I'm because I'm rather proud of the word because I coined it on the spot. And it does take out the randomness on the random number value. And the chess computer programs have brought out the fact that the positions of chess constitute a matrix of alternative action possibilities that can be analyzed and wherein desirable goals can be achieved, and which has been used to advantages in many varied areas of endeavor. And I'm pretty sure that a computer programmer will have a different viewpoint of the decision processes of chess playing than the "noncomputer" minded person due to his knowledge of the difference.WFPM (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In the computer chess program that I play as Black, I know that white is determined to castle within the first series of opening moves. I would think that that should give me an advantage over him, since I can prepare a defensive strategy under that assumption. I would be interested in knowing truly whether he achieves an advantage by this, but the point is that in a computer mind I don't know how he arrived at such a decision. Therefore there must be some primary instructions or something that causes him to do this.WFPM (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What's a "primary" instruction? (Versus "secondary"? Never heard of that.) And by "a matrix of alternative action possibilities", do you mean variations? If you don't know programming and you're not a very good player, why are you attempting to hypothesize and compare? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your computer opponent castles either because 1) it is following a book line stored in its openings library, or 2) its algorithm places a certain value on castling (getting the king out of the middle of the board), and that value trumps the values it figures it can get from any other moves in that position. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay! But it would have to look a long way into the future to be sure mathematically that that would be a superior strategy move. So it is probably be a book line, except that it takes a long time for it to begin to move as you raise the level of play. So we really don't have a Human versus a truly computerized chess program, but rather a human versus a computer assisted program. I've read that there are usually 30 alternatives related to each move (in the beginning) and then about 30 alternative responses to each previous move. So it doesn't take long to create a large number of alternative positions to evaluate, and the Spracklens made much ado about the creation of program truncation systems in order for the computer's view horizon to keep up with that of the experienced player. And since the computer gets smarter and faster as the number of pieces is reduced, The best chance of success is to get it confused early in the game. And I like the idea of trying to survive to the end game with my strategy versus it's strategy and to see which has the best chance of success. And that doesn't involve castling.WFPM (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A program is never "sure" it just plays the best it can see. How old is the program you're playing? Chess Assistant Light 7 (Convekta Ltd. 2004) kicks my ass regularly, and it castles, with impunity. In past, computers were weakest in the endgame, best in complex, open middlegames. Don't know they have any weaknesses anymore. But I still think it can't see long-term strategic plans. My program is so good at controlling key squares, though, I sometimes think it doesn't need the vision thing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The game is called "Chess Titans" on my Dell Computer. And I can't see why it would be weakest in the end game because there are not as many variable possibilities there. And if I get into a stalemate situation and stall around, it will occasionally make risky moves as an umpteen effort to break a deadlock. And like I say, The higher the complexity the longer the time to move for even a 2 move variable possibility. Is there a book on move strategies for someone playing black who doesn't castle? The game usually progresses with White's attack on it's Queen side, probably assuming that I have castled, and if I can defeat that, then it will try its king side. But I can usually shift my major pieces either way and sometimes outpower it after it destroys the pawn structure on its King side. And I have my doubts about the advisability of its backing up its forward knight positions with its pawns, because then it occasionally allows me to take its knight and double up its pawns, which I think is a bad strategy. And when I win its usually because I maintain the strongest pawn structure and then get to Queen a pawn, which I think is probably the right basic strategy for playing the game.WFPM (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Internet chess servers up for deletion

List of Internet chess servers JunoBeach (talk) JunoBeach (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Another Correction

The section on "check" begins, "When a king is under immediate attack by one or _two_ of the opponent's pieces, it is said to be in check."

The rules do not limit number of pieces which may threaten the king at one time. A more accurate statement would be, "When a king is under immediate attack by one or _more_ of the opponent's pieces, it is said to be in check."

Would have corrected this myself, but the article appears to have been hacked, and is currently inaccessible to editing.

As a consequence of the laws of chess (specifically the rules on check and the way that the pieces move) there aren't any legal chess positions that have the king attacked by more than two pieces simultaneously. That said, we could consider rewording the sentence a bit. Quale (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Most accurate would be to say "When a king is under immediate attack by any of the opponent's pieces, it is said to be in check." The remainder about two pieces max. is an incidental fact that arguably belongs more on the "check (chess)" article page, where it presently says "A check is the result of a move that places the opposing king under an immediate threat of capture by one (or sometimes two) of the player's pieces. (In some chess variants, check by more than two pieces is possible.)" Its parenthesis there could be removed and the second sentence extended to say "As a consequence of the laws of chess no legal position can arise in which a king is checked by more than two pieces simultaneously, although in some chess variants a check by more than two pieces is possible." Pete Hobbs (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right about that. Check by more than one piece is not really part of the rules - it is an incidental consequence. I agree with taking out that part, as you say. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Another alternative is to move the parenthetical out of the body text to an unparenthetical footnote (i.e. [Note]). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I would simplify:

As a consequence of the laws of chess no legal position can arise in which a king is checked by more than two pieces simultaneously, although in some chess variants a check by more than two pieces is possible.

to:

It follows from the rules of chess that a king can never be checked by more than two pieces at once, although in some chess variants [...]

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's OK too. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as Pete Hobbs and Bubba73 suggest this detail can go in check (chess), but this article should omit it as not being part of the rules. Quale (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Added link to "irregular chess openings"

I came across Irregular_chess_opening which wasn't cited here so have added it to See Also - other lists. It's a stub which is in fact a list; the name seems awkward, so in addition I'm proposing a name change over there. One is one and one is one (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Unjustified to add to 'See also'. There are many chess-related articles, "coming across one that isn't cited" isn't reason to include it. (List of chess openings, which isn't even in the 'See also' list, would certainly come before the irregulars.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't needed. There are over 2000 chess articles - that one is of no particular interest to the general chess article. Bubba73

^{You talkin' to me?} 05:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Conceded. I now see See also Index_of_chess_articles, a very reasonable chain. One is one and one is one (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

'His' vs 'His or her'

Hi all, I was reading the article and found the use of 'his' to refer to players quite odd, so I edited the article to replace these instances with 'his or her' (this has been reverted but it should still be in the history). I was wondering if there is some sort of general consensus for the use of 'his' versus 'his or her' in articles? Thanks for your input. The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Platypus. I'm not aware of any consensus on the matter. I recently made my own edit to a different page which nobody has bothered me about. The context of that edit was that there was a "Man versus Computer Chess Challenge," and the participants were all males but I changed from "man" to "human" because I felt that was more politically correct.

WP:WikiProject_Chess has a section on capitalization conventions. If there were consensus about the "his or her" thing I would expect it to be reflected on that page. I hope this helps.

Mattj2 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how capitalization is involved at all here. (I think not.) And the "Man versus Computer" article, as you mentioned, was a specific, special context. (So, I don't think that is what Platypus is issuing here.)

The gender "his" versus alternatives regarding chess-related articles has been discussed somewhat extensively at WT:CHESS and Antichess. (Platypus, I asked if you had visited those discussions, but you didn't say.) The issue of gender-neutral has some MOS guidelines, and there is a gender-neutral project board as well. (There is discussion there as well, re chess-related articles.) Nevertheless, the fact this issue continues to keep coming up, I think, makes a very interesting issue, since, it may be festering as "unresolved", it may not be, I really do not know. (I can explain what I mean more fully ... is anyone interested?) Meanwhile, as an interesting and maybe "model" and informative case, try to make the following sentence gender-neutral ... it is a simple sentence taken from article Grünfeld Defence:

White can develop his pieces in a number of ways in the Exchange Variation.

(Would you change it to "White can develop his or her pieces ..."? Personally I think that is atrocious writing style, it worsens the sentence re its message by injecting distracting and unnecessary sex differentiation language. (In chess literature, even beginner books, "he" means either sex. Some authors consistently use "she" to mean either sex, that is fine too, but rarer.)

IMO, the big, big question is, are Wiki chess-realted articles best reflecting how the standard literature (including beginners books) practice? Or a special Engish Wiki-adopted practice, different from the sources? (That question, has never really been addressed per se, and should be discussed at WT:CHESS IMO, to make a consistent conclusion, recommendation and practice. [The reason I don't like "his and her" is not only because it disjoints the sentence by interjecting chromosome considerations when chess concepts are attempting to be described and explained [which are hard enough to do without additional and unnecessary/distracting words], but because it is inconsistent with the vast literature of books, magazines, websites, and speech about chess in the real world [but not the Wiki necessarily]. But it may be fully accepetable IMO, if WP decides a different course from the literature, explicitly gender-neutral throughout, even though that is what would seem "odd" to chessplayers [rather than the reverse, stated by Platypus], vis-a-vis the literature, including as mentioned, beginners books.)

To repeat ad nauseum, I don't think the issue of whether WP wants to diverge from accepted practice in the literature (use of "he" to denote both sexes and even computers, preferrably referred to as/by "it") by introducing blind gender-neutralization, has been discussed, weighed, and decided yet. (There are those assumptions floating in this and earlier discussions, but they are assumptions prefacing decisions, and we shouldn't do that, it produces this kind of contention/confusion. It is possible out of a full discussion with that assumption on table, that MOS should be updated to reflect that use of "he" in games articles represents both sexes without offense or exclusion as a general literature convention in real world, so this contention can be put to bed. If not, then this discussion/argument to make everything gender neutral in games-related articles (chess especially) will continue to fester as it has here and at Antichess. p.s. If gender neutrality is decided upon in spite of literature conventions outside Wiki, then my own preference is to use "they" and "their", instead of "he and she" and "his and hers". (It is less jarring, less sex-chromosome-distracting from the article content attempting to be described/explained.) p.p.s. Sometimes, there are easy ways to circumvent gender-specific, that are consistent with the current MOS guideline to do so if can be done "with precision", however those cases are best identified case-by-case (blanket change is bad; most of the efforts to gender-neutralize I have seen on Wiki are blanket changes, irrespective of article quality, and with disregard/dismissal of the subject literature, stemming from the conclusion from an assumption previously described [that Wiki can/should be different from the practice in the subject literature). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Meh, I'm just revealing my ignorance. Ok, so it's been discussed at WT:CHESS and Antichess. In the course of following links I found WT:Gender-neutral language. Just for the sake of repeating it again, the quote from WP:MOS is "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." (And actually in my example, where the chess players were all men, the MOS explicitly says that it's fine to use a gendered pronoun.) Platypus, if this is an important issue for you I suggest you raise it at WT:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games, which is the parent of this project. I won't contest User:Ihardlythinkso's point that most of the chess literature uses "his." So you might as well try to get consensus somewhere where the literature isn't so male-dominated. If there were a general policy/guideline on the "Board and Table Games" project that articles shouldn't say "A player moves his pieces," we could have a very different kind of discussion here on this project. Mattj2 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I do think the discussion belongs at Proj Board & table games, as using "his" to refer to a generic player is a games thing, not just a chess thing. (The reason "especially chess" is just because there are so many chess-related articles, more than any other boardgame, and, the amount of literature/books re chess is way more than other games.)

Just for the heck of it I pulled a random games book off my bookshelf and turned to a random page ... The book was Starting Out in Checkers by Richard Pask, published by Everyman Publishers, London (2001). The page was p. 64. It's an anlysis of "Key Endgame 2" on p. 63, with no "he" or "he and she"s. But on the very next page, p. 65, which begins to analyse "Key Endgame 3", there is one only text paragraph, which says: "In order for Black to draw, it is vital that he can freely occupy squares 9 and 13 as required. His defence then consists of a perpetual see-saw movement between these two squares." (So, the gender thing is a games thing, not a chess thing. And the real literature has no problem with "he".

I don't think the MOS can be interpreted literally for areas it couldn't or didn't anticipate (specifically, games contexts). Nevertheless as mentioned I think discussion is needed to either exempt games contexts from blanket application of gender-neutral efforts as was attempted here at Chess, or it should be decided that Wikipedia wants to go its own way re gender-neutral in games contexts/articles, inconsistent with real world games literature. Again, agreed, that discussion belongs at Board & Table games, not here, not at Antichess. If the discussion is at Proj Board & Table Games, then discussion focus would be on what is best for articles and how this relates to MOS or changes to MOS. I think a presupposition at Gender Neutral discussion board that games articles should not be any different from other articles exists, and the focus there is on gender-neutral language, with games contexts and games articles (quality of) a secondary (or even non-existent) consideration. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback. The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• "They" is plural and here correctly means both players together. Using it also as singular makes ambiguity and is confusing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  I agree those are drawbacks. (I just think other alternatives are even worse.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Players

I have just noticed that both the infobox and lead describe chess as a two-player game. But this is not accurate, as team games can be played (and have been). I'm not sure how to adequately modify this, though. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That still seems like two players to me, even if a group of people decides on the move. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Chess being from India be mentioned earlier?

The first sentence of a Wikipedia article should be like "Chess is a game originating from India (or something like that). Why is it all the way at the bottom? Who decides these thigns? How come some articles mention thigns like this earlier and some don't? 108.13.86.182 (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The introduction of the article is a summary (see WP:LEAD). Discussing the origins of chess in the introduction of this article is a bit of a problem, since it is disputed (the Indian theory being one possibility). However, it is mentioned in the lead of the article History of chess. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Reruns are so boring: Talk:Chess/Archive_5#Question_here, Talk:Chess/Archive_6#Why is the Indian version part after the European_part?, and Talk:Chess/Archive_7#why is this article back to mentioning euarope brefore India?. The next time this is trolled the list will reach five. Quale (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm new

Hello, I'm new to wikipedia, still learning the basics. I like this article about chess, not sure how could I contribute. I appreciate any advice, thank you. ~~GreyWinterOwl~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyWinterOwl (talk • contribs) 09:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. It's not clear if you are just new to Wikipedia editing or to chess as well. If you have a good knowledge of chess and some time to spare to contribute to chess articles, I would say probably avoid this main article Chess, which has been quite finely tuned over the years. Changes here often spark quite fierce debates, so it would not be a good training ground! A good place to visit however, is WP:CHESS where you can add your name to the participants of 'Wikiproject Chess'. You will see there are many suggestions for improving chess articles on that page and if you have any questions or seek a communal view on something, that can be achieved on the associated talk page (see the 'Talk' tab at the top of the Project page). Then just choose a topic area you are interested in and share your specialist knowledge and/or encyclopedic facts, wherever you feel an article can be improved, always including good quality references to support your edits. Above all else, enjoy the experience! Brittle heaven (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

How to get the whole chess articles easily

Hello, I'm new to wikipedia, still learning the basics.So, I want to get all the chess articles in the english wikipedia. This for the localization purpose as offline. Is there any link or method to get the whole articles as single or multiple pdf files. --Arjunkmohan (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

On the left menu of every article is a book creator option that allows user created books, see Help:Books for assistance. The books can be downloaded as a pdf. An almost complete list of around 4000 chess articles can be found at Index of chess articles. Books normally contain about 100 articles so it's conceivable that some limit could be reached if you actually want ALL chess articles in one book. The organization in Outline of chess could be a useful for selecting articles. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 10:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest changing "Chess matches" to "Chess games" in section Time Control. Speling12345 (talk) 2:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Please add info on the history of chess

I would like to know who invented chess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.214.62 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you overlook the Chess#History section? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Change "correspondance" link to "by correspondance"

Hello, I think that the "correspondence" link at the top of the page should include the word "by" so that people don't think the link is to "correspondence", but to the Chess by correspondence page. I am unable to do this myself since I'm on a public computer and don't want to enter my password. --69.157.240.246 (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)