Talk:Chess

Chess player number

I made an edit to mention that hundreds of millions, rather than just millions, of people play chess. Later, it was reverted due to being unnecessary, according to the edit summary. However, I believe that “hundreds of millions” more effectively illustrates chess’s popularity. Thoughts? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree. The difference between "millions" and "hundreds of millions" is significant. Do we have a reliable source estimating the number of chess players worldwide? Quale (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Whereas the word "millions" might be thrown around casually, the phrase "hundreds of millions" implies actual precision and is more likely to be challenged. That means, must cite reliable source.

Alright, I'm back. Is the United Nations a good source? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that looks good. I'll add it to the body and lead. Endwise (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it is pretty embarrassing to be using a blurb for World Chess Day as a source for an encyclopedia article. See WP:RS. Could you try to find where they got those numbers? Bruce leverett (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It apparently comes from research conducted by YouGov for FIDE/Agon. Here is a primary source[1] [2] on FIDE and a secondary source which mentions it: [3]. I'll update the article accordingly. Endwise (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no, that secondary source was wrong. It is an estimate done by FIDE itself some time ago, they just happened to quote it in that analysis which The New Republic didn't fact check properly. From FIDE's press release: In an official International Olympics Committee (IOC) submission a few years ago, FIDE cited the number of chess players worldwide to be 605 million. Yougov's analysis was only looking at five different countries, and they did not estimate the total number of players worldwide. Looking further, I came across these two blog posts about the figure: [4] [5]. It seems this is something FIDE has been claiming for an extremely long time; they put the number at "over half a billion" in 2000. The source for the 605 number seems to be a quite dubious unpublished estimate of FIDE's (which the author of those blog posts don't really believe). I don't think I really trust this figure anymore, but it does seem to have been repeated by many sources we'd normally consider to be reliable, so there's that. Endwise (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I see a lot of speculation and uncertainty about all the numbers, especially the often quoted "605 million". There are approximately 800,000 players on the FIDE rating list, and only a minority of players registered with their national federation have FIDE ratings. There are probably as many players again who know the rules but only play casually. So I think we have enough evidence to justify "millions", but not "hundreds of millions". Some further reading at a favourite source for wikiproject chess editors: "Nobody knows, even roughly, how many people play chess, and nobody should pretend to know." MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I'd definitely value the opinion of a chess historian like Edward Winter over what seems to be a very suspicious claim by FIDE. Possibly it could be mentioned in the body of the article somewhere that FIDE claims there are 605 million chess players, but some have called this estimate dubious. Regardless it would probably be better leaving it as "millions" in the lead for the time being. Endwise (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Association football says that that sport is "played by approximately 250 million players in over 200 countries and dependencies, making it the world's most popular sport." That claim is made in the lead paragraph, without a citation, but is repeated later in the article, with a citation of a study by FIFA. That claim says, "... regularly play football." The word "regularly" is presumably important. Is anyone aware of such a study regarding chess? Bruce leverett (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"Ajedrez" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ajedrez and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 6#Ajedrez until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2022

change : "Harbour workers playing chess in Kotka, Finland in 1958" to "Harbour workers using chess pieces to play checkers in Kotka, Finland in 1958" or remove the picture altoghether. If you look closely, all the pieces are on dark squares, there are possibly three Kings and Queens on the board and the position does - if it were a chess game - would not make any sense. The harbour workers shown in the picture were obviously using chess pieces to play checkers. 2A02:A03F:618E:3100:B471:4439:3802:B6D (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done (kind of): I edited the caption to read that they were playing using chess pieces, so it no longer states they are playing Chess. If someone wants to remove the image altogether, as IP suggested, I won't object. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 16:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

re Movement

Could I suggest that as this paragraph covers the basic points, another point - even more basic, more helpful to beginners - be included? This is that (in the Staunton set at least) the distinctive shape of each main piece clearly indicates the form of the move it makes. 145.224.65.34 (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Caroline Ashley-Cooper

In the literature and in popular culture

@Dark Looon and Wretchskull: As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with using the preposition "in" twice in this way, and indeed, it may even make the sentence easier to follow for the reader, who may otherwise suppose that the article "the" applies to both "literature" and "popular culture". Bruce leverett (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. You perfectly described the kind of ambiguity that I want to avoid. Dark Looon (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Chess variants

Senterej ,old game in Ethiopia is one of the chess variants. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senterej Mek2022 (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Except For One Interruption

The portion of the Post-WW2 era of Chess where the FIDE controlled the title "except for one interruption" needs a source. Specifically about the interruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C700:38E3:1D95:1FBD:EB69:17BF (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Origin of modern chess

An editor has modified the article as if Calvo's theory of the Spanish origin of modern chess was generally accepted. Is this warranted?

Comparable modifications have been made to History of Chess. Bruce leverett (tal) 17:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure. I know quite a lot about chess theory, and about chess history and literature from Lucena (1497) onwards... but as to the actual origins of the modern game, this is very obscure and specialized stuff with (as far as I understand it) much disagreement and speculation. From my lay point of view, the early literature (Lucena, Vicent and Scachs d'amor) appears to support a Spanish/Catalan origin for the modern queen and bishop moves. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

FIDE Definition

Shouldn't we be using the actual FIDE acronym (Fédération Internationale des Échecs) rather than (International Chess Federation)?

Origin of chess

Dear all, I understand that the origins of chess are bit murky and that there is some desire among both Iranians and Indians to take the bulk of the credit for innovation of chess.

I am just a layman when it comes to history, but the complete lack of any mention of the persian form of the game Shatranj in the introduction seems a bit politically motivated given the centrality of this form both in the documented history, development and transmission of chess between east and west.

While there is no doubt that the most ancient predecessors of the game originate from India, it seems equally well established that the first complete descriptions of a game resembling modern chess are from persian/arabic sources (please correct me if I am wrong - again I am just a layman!). Also, from my understanding there is no doubt that the persian/arabic form of the game was the form that Europeans were initially exposed to when western chess was developed.

So the current statement "The current form of the game emerged in Spain and the rest of Southern Europe during the second half of the 15th century after evolving from chaturanga, a similar but much older game of Indian origin." seems to be positively misleading as Europans would not have been exposed to chaturanga at this time - rather something along the lines of would probably be more accurate "evolving from shatranj, a persian adaptation of chaturanga, a much older game of Indian origin."

I hope that these issues can be addressed in way that reflects the importance and primacy of both the original Indian form of the game as well as the deep historial influence of the subsequent Persian adaptation.

Again, I am not a historian, and would very much appreciate any corrections to my understanding! 155.91.73.3 (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

In the Predecessors subsection of the History section, there is a reasonably detailed description of the evolution of chess from chaturanga, mentioning shatranj as an intermediate form. This, not the introductory paragraph, is where we should be going into detail. It is OK, in the introductory paragraph, if we do not mention every important step in the journey from chaturanga to chess. It is not "politically motivated" -- I would remind you of WP:GOODFAITH. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, thanks for your feed-back, and also for referring to the WP:GOODFAITH - as you may have gathered, I am a novice at wikipedia editing. I whole-heartedly agree with you that the Introductory paragraph is not the place to delve into every detail in the historical journey fra chaturanga to modern chess. However, the point I am trying to make is that Shatranj is not just any other old detail - but one of the most pivotal in the documented history, development, transmission and spread of chess. To my understanding it is the first form of the game which we know for certain based on written sources had a reasonable resemblance to the gameplay of modern chess - and the originating chaturanga game may for all we know have been played very differently (I understand some sources believe it may have even been a dice game). Furthermore, to my understanding shatranj is the direct predecessor to the modern European forms, and most likely is also the predecessor to other modern forms (including modern Indian chess!) having been spread with conquests of the Arabs. Again, my historical understandings may be faulty, and I am happy to receive any corrections on these points. Nevertheless, it appears to me that the uniquely significant historical contribution of this form of chess warrants, if nothing more, than at least being mentioned in passing in the introductory paragraph. 84.213.28.158 (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Comparing the article shatranj with the Predecessors subsection I mentioned above, I would say that if you think the latter doesn't adequately summarize some aspects of the former, go ahead and try to improve it. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"Chesse" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chesse and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 19#Chesse until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)