Talk:Chess

Movement of Pawn

Current Situation

The pawn usually moves one step straight forward, but it may move two steps straight forward on its first move unless its path is obstructed. However, the only way a pawn may capture is by moving one square diagonally forward. The pawn has two special moves, the en passant capture, and pawn promotion.

Back in the year 2008

(a version which the article reinstated as a featured one (this version):

• Pawns have the most complex rules of movement:[2]
• A pawn can move forward one square, if that square is unoccupied. If it has not yet moved, the pawn has the option of moving two squares forward, if both squares in front of the pawn are unoccupied. A pawn cannot move backward.
• When such an initial two square advance is made that puts that pawn horizontally adjacent to an opponent's pawn, the opponent's pawn can capture that pawn en passant as if it moved forward only one square rather than two, but only on the immediately subsequent move.
• Pawns are the only pieces that capture differently than they move. They can capture an enemy piece on either of the two spaces adjacent to the space in front of them (i.e., the two squares diagonally in front of them), but cannot move to these spaces if they are vacant.
• If a pawn advances all the way to its eighth rank, it is then promoted (converted or "queened") to a queen, rook, bishop, or knight of the same color. In practice, the pawn is almost always promoted to a queen.

I think the substantial difference is in the king's and the pawn's move. In the king's case the result is due to the removing the castling because we have a seperate heading for it. Also in the pawn's case, removing promotion and en passant again we have now seperate headings for them. But there is substantial change in the wording (there is a difference of wording in the knight also which is better than the old I think) also and I think current situation is at least vague. The pawn movement deserves a better explanation because as the old version states it has the most complex rules. So my idea is this:

FIDE HandBook (with very minor changes)

I changed a very little and it is section 3.7.a,b and c [[1]] . Again explanation for en passant and promotion is left and the last sentence remains. It is as condensed as the current one (only one line longer).

The pawn may move forward to the unoccupied square immediately in front of it on the same file, or on its first move it may advance two squares along the same file provided both squares are unoccupied, or it may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece, which is diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that piece. The pawn has two special moves, the en passant capture, and pawn promotion. Oz an (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

Castling

I don't think along with "pieces involved in the castling shouldn't have been moved previously", we have to state "The king and the rook must be on the same rank". It is there to eliminate a very surprising(really I'm surprised and I bet u do too) hypothetical case, but it is confusing if it stays in the main conditions of the castling. So I changed it (with a rook not in the game by promotion) but it is undone by Quale. Then I went to fide handbook of chess rules and (fide handbook): "This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: ..." I think it handles the situation. The reason as it is stated as a main item is because of the cited source for the rules (which is not fide by the way). Anyway, it is a case not happened in the entire history of chess!! Also I added something about some common confusing things about the castling at the end of the paragraph(which is in the castling also). So please not "undo" my edit but try to improve or at least talk about your concerns here. Oz an (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

The article now says "..and then placing the rook immediately on the far side of the king." Where on the far side of the king? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 20:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

it wasn't me :). If you compare revisions it was describing the movement as you quoted. Anything I did made it less meaningful? Oz an (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

Well, it read that way before the last change. But "immediately" sounds like done quickly after the king move rather than describing the square immediately on the other side. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree and I think it not as clear as should be that one must move the king first and the rook after.

what about "to the last square the king has just crossed. " except to the last it is the same in fide handbook and castling Oz an (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

What does that mean ?

"the king is generally more powerful than a bishop or knight but less powerful than a rook, thus it is sometimes assigned a fighting value of four points." I'm not sure of usage and how a king's value can be determined. Both sides always have his own king. I haven't heard such a thing even in chess engine programming. Any source or ideas, obviously I'm missing something ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz an (talk • contribs)

The kings are never exchanged, but in the endgame a king is generally more powerful than a minor piece but less powerful than a rook. See chess piece relative value. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking the chess piece relative value and I think it is on my side. The very first sentence is In chess, the chess piece relative value system conventionally assigns a point value to each piece when assessing its relative strength in potential exchanges. They play no formal role in the game but are useful to players, and are also used in computer chess to help the computer evaluate positions. There is not even king in the right image. Below under the heading standard valuations: The value of the king is undefined as it cannot be captured, let alone traded... Some early computer chess programs gave the king an arbitrary large value (such as 200 points or 1,000,000,000 points). But then two sources (Lasker and Ward) for king being the 4 points based on some ability in the endgame. I see no practical usage of this, I can't think any chess player use it when evaluating a position. Anyway, obviously it is not standard and not widely used, to the contrary, widely used evaluation is 'undefined' in engine programming and beginner stuff (These are rough rules to teach beginners not to exchange some valuable piece to a much lesser value). So even a knight can have much value than a rook at some situations. So general applicability based on exchange is what matters here. Any ideas?? Oz an (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

Lasker said that a king was as powerful as a knight plus pawn. Of course you don't need to use it when evaluating the material count of a position, but the king is useful nevertheless. Early in the game it helps protect pawns. It is a very powerful piece in the endgame. It helps with the basic checkmates: a queen or rook or two minor pieces (or even three minor pieces) can't force checkmate without the king. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But your argument tells nothing about the king being 4 points (except the first sentence). But the king is useful nevertheless (so?), It is a very powerful piece in the endgame (does it make this power equal to 4?), a queen or rook or two minor pieces (or even three minor pieces) can't force checkmate without the king., (is there a total point necessary to deliver checkmate which I don't know).

I'm trying to make the point that article has to state that the king is invaluable and its value is undefined or very high, but in some situations and to few players and writers it may be 4 points. At least it is to be mentioned, because the general, most used and usable, applicable to most situations in the game or amongst the played games statement is given in chess piece relative value Oz an (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

But in practical terms, it is more powerful than a minor piece and less powerful than a rook in the endgame. Lasker wasn't just a writer - he was the World Champion for about 27 years. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I revised it in the article. To put it another way, it is more valuable than all of the other pieces combined, but its power in the endgame is between a minor piece and a rook. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is better (although I still disagree with a world champ) Oz an (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

Color: Red vs. Black

Not yet covered issue.Alliumnsk (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What issue? The colours in chess are White and Black. Red doesn't come into it. Fricasso (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Western chess

The Lead says it is sometimes called Western chess, and Bubba73 appropriately cited a reference for that, but I cannot find this claim in the other sections. And the Lead is supposed to be a mere summary of what the other sections contain... SyG (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As the lead says, it is only called that when you want to distinguish "modern standard chess" from variants or older versions. Bubba73 (talk), 16:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now mentioned the name "western chess" in the "Birth of a sport (1450-1850)" section, where the relevant rules changes are discussed, and have moved the reference there. The lead additionally mentions the name "international chess", which is not mentioned in the reference given for western chess. I cannot (with an admittedly short search) find a reference for this. Searches for "international chess" mostly bring up pages about "Some place international chess tournament", where the international refers to the fact that the tournament is international, and not to the fact that "international chess" is being played. HermanHiddema (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I found a link to "international chess" in that context and added it to the article. Bubba73 (talk), 00:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Article deletion

You might want to discuss the following chess set articles here:

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 26

Green Squares (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, that comes handy ! SyG (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

The discussion page, in its function as a tool for improvement, can unfortunately and inadvertently emphasize criticism of topic coverage to the point that the positive qualities o f such coverage go unnoticed. I personally think, as a long time user of wikipedia, that the coverage of chess as a topic here is the broadest in scope, most skillful in pith, and overall the best documentary effort of any section that I have used on the site. I'd like to thank the authors for giving me some meager hope of improving from absolute hopelessness to the prospect of intermediacy as a player. N88819 (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC) 02:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the chess Wikiproject, I thank you for your kind remarks. I also think the chess coverage is very good and there are quite a few very dedicated editors. Bubba73 (talk), 02:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your thanks, it is always welcome and brighten our faith to do more. SyG (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Chess software? Programs to store, go through and print games?

Hi! How about a section about chess software? (I came across this article when trying to find an easy way to generate diagrams as gif-images. Does anyone know about such a software?) Greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.143 (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Edit

{{editsemiprotected}} AT "When a king is under immediate attack by one or two of the opponent's pieces, it is said to be in check. The only permissible responses to a check are to capture the checking piece, interpose a piece between the checking piece and the king" INSERT "(unless the attacking piece is a knight)" THEN CONTINUE AS BEFORE ", or move the king to a square where it is not under attack."

 Done I agree that that clarification is necessary--Tangent747 (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} AT "The current form of the game emerged in Europe during the second half of the 15th century after evolving from a much older game (Shatranj)" insert "(FARSI:شطرنج)".

Then in history part it is said that "Chess is commonly believed to have originated in North-West India during the Gupta empire,[17][18][19][20]. .......... The earliest evidence of Chess is found in the neighboring Sassanid Persia around 600 where the game is known under the name became chatrang." I don't understand where it is originated form, India or Persia?

A.Mapar (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: All the non-latin scripts were disruptive to the text. Instead of adding Persian I removed the others: (HINDI:शतरंज),(PUNJABI:ਸ਼ਤਰੰਜ),(URDU:شترنح). On your second note I take it the first sentence is about where chess is commonly believed to have originated and the second where there's evidence. jonkerz♠ 20:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Chess a sport

I am sure this question has come up before and nor do I have a source, however, can chess be defined as a sport. It is played pro. So the question is how do you define a sport? Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The main definitions of Sport involve physical activity. It certainly is a mind sport. If physical activity is not required then it certainly is a sport. Bubba73 (talk), 02:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is going to be a debate. I quote from

a section of Sport

Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports 'commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor' are the sole or primary determinant of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports (a common name for some card games and board games with little to no element of chance)' and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors"

The term sports is sometimes extended to encompass all competitive activities in which offense and defense are played, regardless of the level of physical activity. Both games of skill' and motor sport 'exhibit many of the characteristics of physical sports', such as skill, sportsmanship, and at the highest levels, even professional sponsorship associated with physical sports

But you are, I am supposing going to say "where is the source?"- it is here- http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/recognized/index_uk.asp Taken from Sport under terminology-Please note the word chess in italics.

The term is sometimes extended to encompass all competitive activities in which offense and defense are played, regardless of the level of physical activity. Both games of skill and motor sport exhibit many of the characteristics of physical sports, such as skill, sportsmanship, and at the highest levels, even professional sponsorship associated with physical sports. Air sports, billiards, bridge, chess, motorcycle racing, and powerboating are all recognized as sports by the International Olympic Committee with their world governing bodies represented in the Association of the IOC Recognised International Sports Federations.

I would like it to be added to the article, this in my opinion should have been picked up before the feat. status was given.

P.S. This is Cloverfield Monsta (I changed my name) [[User:Cloverfield Monsta|<b><font color="black">° '''Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…)</font></b>]] [[User_Talk:Truth of the World: Welcome to the Show|<b><font color="blue">^{{{Polytonic| ῼ}}}</font>]] (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it has been discussed before: here and here most recently. I'm happy with how it is described at the moment: it is called a game (which no-one can dispute, surely) in the first sentence but it also mentions later in the lead section (which you appear to have missed) that it is a recognised sport of the IOC.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I like to think of chess as a sport. However, the first two definitions here say "physical activity". Bubba73 (talk), 20:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

bubba-that is not reliable source, I would like it to be changed, I can request a mediator if nesscary. Again this source states it is http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/recognized/index_uk.asp. And the sport article, i states in writing. The source states it is the official governing body of sport. So we can say the official Olympic governing body recognizes Chess as a sport (?) Yes/no/maybe. I still stand with the fact it is a sport. Rememberregardless of the level of physical activity. Both games of skill (game of skill Chess). Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 00:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, but it was easy to reference. New Oxford American Dictionary is a reliable source, and def #1 says "physical exertion" and there is no def otherwise except an archaic one. Nevetheless, I'd like to think of things such as chess as a sport. One of the things above said that there was offense and defense. There is no defense in bowling, archery, or golf (or track and field). Are these sports? Bubba73 (talk), 01:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit lost here. As Pawnkingthree mentions, the fact that chess is recognised as a sport is already mentioned in the Lead, and latter in the article. So what is exactly the proposal for a change ? SyG (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but could you please point out where exactly. The reason is in the first sentence of this article in should also state sport. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 10:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that chess is also a sport is mentioned in the second sentence of the third paragraph of the Lead. I am not in favor of mentioning it in the first sentence, because the first sentence is used to define the essence of the subject of the article, and chess is first and foremost a game. SyG (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion. It is not what you favour but what is encyclopdic. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 08:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not "in my opinion". What is encyclopedic is that chess is a game, because that is what encyclopediae say. SyG (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a notable and relible source, if you cannot then it is stated as source, as simple that. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 01:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

← Here is a notable and reliable source: Britannica. In its first sentence it says "chess is a checkerboard game for two players". It does not mention "sport". SyG (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This source is more reliable http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/recognized/index_uk.asp therefore it is used. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 08:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your source does not state that chess is a sport before being a game. It just states that chess is recognised as a sport by the Olympic Committee, and this is already stated in the Lead. SyG (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes recongnised as a sport, I want it in the first sentence, it can still state it is a game but also a sport. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 06:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your personal preference in this matter is not relevant. Can you refer a reliable source that shows that an encyclopedia will generally mention that chess is a sport before they mention that it is a game? The Britannica reference by SyG shows otherwise. HermanHiddema (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

please read this whole section. This source is the most reliable-- http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/recognized/index_uk.asp --I'm your biggest fan --Paparazzi --Lady Gaga ° 03:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not that is true, we don't put statements into an article in order of decreasing reliability of their references. The only statement the IOC reference backs up is "Chess is a recognized sport of the IOC". It says nothing of where to put the statement. (This whole thing brings back memories from the Indian who thought it absolutely necessary to mention India in the first sentence. Why don't we just put the whole article in the first sentence?) —JAO • T • C 09:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is important, it must be put, if you have no "good" reason I will put it myself. --R.I.P. Michael :( 13:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We've been through all this many times before. There are many "good" reasons to call it a game first and foremost; dictionaries, encyclopedias and specialist chess reference books all call it a game rather than a sport, most if not all newspapers put their chess column in the games section rather than the sports section, most libraries and book shops do the same thing, the UK government have consistently resisted calls to classify chess as a sport, because they'd then have to fund it with lottery cash, etc. etc. The consensus last time was to leave it as it is - it's a sensible layout based on 'due weight' considerations; the IOC can't simply re-define the world when it suits them, but they can declare something a sport for their own purposes. If we were going to call it a "mind sport", then that would be a whole different argument, because chess forms a large part of the long established Mind Sports Olympiad, but the pro-'sports' people never seem keen on that label for some reason. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting "mind sport" could be considered as a replacement for (board) game; only that it may merit a mention somewhere, probably outside of the lead section to avoid over-complicating what should be a brief, succinct introduction to the topic. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was an interesting remark and wouldn't mind "mind sport" being worked into the third paragraph. As for the first, I agree that "board game" is really the way to go (I boldly changed "game" to "board game" because it's more specific and I don't think anyone will object). —JAO • T • C 17:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I like board game and as the third para seemed a bit mixed-up anyway, I have re-phrased to incorporate the mind sport reference, while starting a new para for the first mention of world champions. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The word sport must be within the first paragraph. yes/no/maybe ? The Revenge of the Fallen (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Cloverfield Monsta and User:Truth of the World: Welcome to the Show ("Rip Micheal" above) have been blocker for sockpuppetry. User:The Revenge of the Fallen has been reported as a new suspected sockpuppet in this case. For details, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dance-pop. I think it is safe to say that this user is just trolling and I suggest we end this discussion. HermanHiddema (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi I have a quesion here-

If Chess is recognized as sports by the International Olympic Committee with their world governing bodies represented in the Association of the IOC.

Then this sport(chess) should also be in the olympics and should be given medals for the winners as othere sports(during summer olympics) I dont seen anyone winning a medal in Chess in the Olympics. Can anyone answer my query. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphajane (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Professional and academic resources....????

Is there any academic journal available somewhere?--222.64.27.120 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Activating the links of.....

International Correspondence Chess Federation, please in the article--222.64.27.120 (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

are you asking for this to be linked in the article? It is, under ICCF. Bubba73 (talk), 00:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is not obvious in the article and would you please add it in Section see also.

Please do the same for the following as well
Chess (disambiguation)--222.64.27.120 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also linked by its full name under External Links. I think that is enough. Bubba73 (talk), 01:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Notation Request

Please move the Notation for recording moves section to just before the Fundamentals of Strategy section. Fundamentals of Strategy gives the notations which haven't been explained yet. Thanks in advance for your consideration... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.138.104.250 (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Bubba73 (talk), 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In section "End of the game"

The current paragraph does not mention that a tournament director can award a win for insufficient losing chances. I am in no position to tackle writing the details of this particular position, but it might be included for the sake of completeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.21 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I do not think a tournament director can "award a win for insufficient losing chances". Award a draw maybe, but definitely not a win. SyG (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Declaring a decisive result or a draw or won only happens in tournament play, and happen in more situations than just insufficient losing chances (the USCF version) or not attempting to win the game by normal means (the FIDE rule), e.g. mobile phones, cheating, third time illegal move, etc. Moreover, declared results are not limited to "1-0", "½-½", and "0-1". The result may also be "0-0" (both sides are caught cheating/colluding), "½-0", or "0-½" (e.g. White's mobile phone rings, but Black has only a bare king left). For an overview article like this one, I don't think the section should get into all the nitty-gritty of rules specific to tournament play, we have Rules of chess for that, but we can probably summarize it: "In tournament play, certain situations and irregularities allow or require the arbiter to end the game and declare a result." Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

question

does anyone know where one can find a chess simulator? you know, you enter the list of moves used in a chess match and it shows you how it played out on the board? 24.184.200.190 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Any decent chess interface will do that; there are lots of free ones to choose from. And if you don't want to download anything, there are several online choices such as this one. —JAO • T • C 15:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! 24.184.200.190 (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How many time can you check in a row? You can check three times in a row. The third check has to be a checkmate. Every time you check, you have to say check to your opponent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.49.138 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 23:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dots and crossed in diagrams

I think the possible moves with dots and captures with crosses looks better.

Moves of a king

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Moves of a rook

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Moves of a bishop

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Moves of a queen

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Moves of a knight

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Moves of a pawn

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

If you look at the current piece articles Rook (chess), Bishop (chess) etc this is the convension used. Yet here in the main chess article it is slightly confusing because it is the other way around. SunCreator (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Indian version part after the European part?

Shouldnt it say how it started in India, and then the merged into the modern version in Europe then? WHy is it backwards then ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably because when you made the same complaint a year ago (archived to Talk:Chess/Archive 5#Question here) trying to discuss it with you proved unproductive. Soon afterward you were banned for a WP:USERNAME violation. Quale (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

OH is that the one sided story? Anyway, so can you tell me why it start's that way? I mean shouldn't it start as from India to Europe. Why does it start with Europe then to India then here the ground 71.105.87.54 (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the problem with the current formulation. The modern rules were invented in Europe, and before that it was not chess, it was another game. SyG (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia where things are supposed to be logical and / or in order. Why not just put it the other way around? And if it had nothing to do with the Indian game, then why even put that information. It's like India doesn't always get the credit it deserves then. And this is not just for the Chess Article then here... 71.105.87.54 (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As said before, I do not see the problem, the sentence seems well-balanced to me. I do not see why putting it the other way round would be more logical. SyG (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the sentence is right but shouldn't it link to and say Persian not Indian? They's not the same thing. 05:43, 2 May 2010 User:64.198.215.3

Image

About the image that keeps getting added and deleted - I agree that the image does not belong in this article. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 16:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree also. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

After today's re-insertions of unwanted images at this article and sea star I have commented, or rather accused and threatened, at User talk:87.220.31.9 and User_talk:Pediainsight#IP_socking. William Avery (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I Think the image was good for the article. What's the problem? --Pediainsight (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that no one else thinks so. I count five people opposed to it being in the chess article and you are the only one in favor. We go by a consensus of editors here, and the consensus is clear. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The picture, in itself, tells one nothing about chess. William Avery (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bubba73 and William Avery. SyG (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

News

Bottom of page - "News from around the world of chess" link (or similar, actually 'Chessboss') - poor site in my opinion - check out their 'breaking news'. There are other quality sites like Chesscafe.com. This is just window dressing for a gameplay link as far as I can see. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it. SyG (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs semi-protection

This article needs semi-protection. I tried to get it several days ago but I was unsuccessful. Perhaps someone else can try. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We all lose an awful amount of time correcting the various non-sense spread every day, and the article easily meets the criteria for semi-protection. SyG (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence Is Not Brute Force

The chess article says: “Nevertheless, from the point of view of artificial intelligence, chess-playing programs are relatively simple: they essentially explore huge numbers of potential future moves by both players and apply an evaluation function to the resulting positions, an approach described as "brute force" because it relies on the sheer speed of the computer.”

The idea that chess programs rely on the sheer speed of the computer is false. This was demonstrated when a mobile phone won the Mercosur Cup 2009 with an Elo performance of 2898. A mobile does not have sheer speed. I suggest we change this statement to say that artificial intelligence is intelligence that is different from human intelligence and is more than brute force because it does not rely on the sheer speed of the computer as demonstrated at the Mercosur Cup 2009. Mschribr (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: Mobile phones do have sheer speed. The mobile phone in question has a 528 MHz processor and 288 MB of RAM. When Deep Blue beat Kasparov in 1997, a 528 MHz processor would have been considered a super computer, the fastest available commercial processors at that time did not exceed 300 MHz. Deep Blue was built up of thirty 120MHz processors, and was capable of about 11 GFLOPS. I wouldn't be surprised if this mobile phone could do some 2-3 GFLOPS. Sure there's been some algorithmic progress, but the mainstay of computer chess remains brute force. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Deep blue and other supercomputers get their speed from having many CPUs and not one fast chip. Deep blue had 30 120 MHz P2SC microprocessor and 480 VLSI chess chips. Deep blue was evaluating 200 million positions per second. The mobile phone is doing maybe 2 million positions per second. That is a factor of about 100 times slower so definitely slow compared to deep blue. If speed were the most important factor then deep blue would win easily. Nevertheless, Hiarcs 13 on the HTC Touch HD was slower but achieved a higher performance rating than deep blue.

Even deep blue was not strictly brute force. On average, there are about 30 potential moves in each chess position. That is 30 positions for the computer to evaluate for each half move or ply. That is 900 positions for 2 ply or 1 move. Then there are 810,000 positions in 2 moves. In addition, 656,100,000,000 positions in 4 moves. Deep blue evaluates 200 million positions per second. So if deep blue was brute force it would need 54 minutes to look 4 moves ahead. At less than 4 moves ahead, it would play much worse than a grandmaster. My point is even deep blue was more then brute force. Mschribr (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Chess programs were only able to get stronger by the ability to greatly increase the brute force aspect of their game though. They were never able to primarily get stronger on their ability to deign a good move. Therefore I think your point isn't that noteworthy.--ZincBelief (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

History says you are wrong. In 1997, deep blue evaluated 200 million positions per second and had a performance rating of 2862. 12 years later in 2009, Hiarcs 13 on a mobile phone HTC Touch HD evaluated 2 million positions per second and had a performance rating of 2898. In 2009 computers use less brute force than 1997 and computers play better. Mschribr (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Some points:

1. The difference between 2862 and 2898 is negligible given the sample size, and one performance at one tournament is what is called "anecdotal evidence".
2. Parallel processor machines are not magic, anything that thirty 120 MHz processors can do, one 3600 MHz processor can also do (the opposite is not true, however). This means that for basic processor speed, deep blue was only about 7 times faster than the mobile phone. Add the VLSI chips, and it performs perhaps 10-100 times better. To get a similar performance while evaluating 10-100 times fewer positions per second is not particularly impressive, it requires at most a 15-30% improvement on your tree pruning algorithm (given a look-ahead of about 6-7 moves on average, which was what deep blue had), or other similar small improvements like a better opening database or a more fine-tuned evaluation function.
3. The page currently lists a set of algorithms that are used to improve performance, such as alpha-beta pruning and IDDFS, but none of those are particularly new. Unless you can show there was some major breakthrough in Artificial Intelligence in the past decade, then it is true that chess engines are still doing basically the same thing they did 20-30 years ago, but they're just doing more of it and doing it faster, with only small incremental improvements to some of the algorithms involved. HermanHiddema (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Some comments:

1. If 36 points is negligible then compare deep blue to 2010 Rybka that is 370 points and evaluating 1/10 the number of positions. This shows today’s programs play better with less brute force.
2. Evaluating 10-100 times fewer positions per second and 15-30% improvement on your tree pruning algorithm means less brute force. Exactly my point today’s programs use less brute force then deep blue and achieve a higher ratings.
3. It is impossible to show when an improvement was implemented as the best program try to keep their higher rank by keeping their improvements secret. What we do see are ratings and hardware used. We see today’s hardware slower then deep blue and playing better. That translates into less brute force for today’s programs compared to deep blue. We did have a major breakthrough in 2008. The top program on the rating lists such as ssdf jumped 300 points from 2007 to 2008.
4. Where are you getting 2-3 GFLOPS for the HTC Touch HD? I see a slower 740 mips for the 528 MHz ARM processor. The 528 MHz HTC Touch HD would not have been a supercomputer in 1997. The top supercomputer in 1997 was over 1 terraflop. In 1997 the Pentium 2 was 300 Mhz. The HTC Touch HD would have been the fastest single CPU desktop computer, but not a supercomputer. Mschribr (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I just found my estimate of 2 million positions per second for pocket fritz 4 was high. Hiarcs 13 as pocket fritz 4 on the mobile phone HTC Touch HD is searching less than 20,000 positions per second. This makes the point stronger that today’s programs are using less brute force then deep blue from 12 years ago. Today’s programs are playing smarter, more like humans than programs from 1997. Deep blue in 1997 looked at 200 million positions per second. Pocket fritz 4 looks at less than 20,000 positions per second in 2009. A world champion looks at about 1 position per second. All 3 at approximately the same rating of 2850. Mschribr (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

inaccuracies in the "fundamentals of tactics" section

i think there are a few inaccuracies in the above mentioned section. first of all, as a chess player, i think that in the first sentence it should read "...tactics in general concentrate on short-term threats or actions". i dont have a source immediately available but i have heard tactics defined as short term threats in chess books. the second thing was how it said the "speed of the processor" determined the possible depth a computer can calculate. i changed this to "the strength of the chess engine and performance of the computer it is being run on." this is more accurate, because not all chess computers are capable of calculating deeply, it is only strong engines running on fast computers. it is a well known fact that chess engines vary in strength, and i can cite Levy, David; Newborn, Monty (1991), How Computers Play Chess, Computer Science Press, ISBN 0-7167-8121-2 as showing that the performance of the computer the engine is run on effects strenght, but its been awhile, and i dont remember how to add that to the references, sorry. the third thing is how it said in quiet complex positions it is not possible to deeply calculate, but thats not true its possible for strong players and computers to do that to some extent, tho i have no source for this. my fourth and last problem is i think the statement "while in 'tactical' positions with a limited number of forced variations where much less than the best move would lose quickly" isnt fully true, because sometimes tactical positions have a good number of playable variations, and sometimes moves that are less than the best move dont necessarily lose quickly, but are just slightly worse. i also think that "much less than the best move" is using too vague of language. thank you that is all GBizzle (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Free PC Chess Game

Not sure if appropriate to mention this at the link section of the main article, but if anyone is interested a free chess game called NagaSkaki can be downloaded at: http://www.mayothi.com/ The game's highest setting is said to have a rating of 2300. The game allows users to create their own boards and pieces if they're inclined. Quite brilliant for a free product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.149.227 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It would not be appropriate to mention this at the link section. SyG (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please highlight the following terms....

• Chess tournament--222.64.219.102 (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Glossary of chess
• Swiss-system tournament--222.64.219.102 (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• FIDE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.219.102 (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you mean... Glossary of chess is not mentioned once in the article, is it ? SyG (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sport reconised by the International Olympic Committee? I belieive it is not.

I was under the impression the IOC did not reconise chess as a sport, despite some wanting it to be. A search of the IOC web site for 'chess' returns no results, whereas it does for other sports. Drkirkby (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20080822115514/www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/if/fi_uk.asp?Id_federation=44 Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

why is this article back to mentioning euarope brefore India?

this has happened before and i dont understand why its happening again. chess originated from india. shouldnt that come first before the modern versino in europe? And shouldnt the i nfo o n india come further up in the article? I mean i would think chess being from india is one of the first thigns taht should be mentioned? I thought this was settled? So why is it changed agian? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered: Talk:Chess/Archive_5#Question_here and #why is this article back to mentioning euarope brefore India?. I don't think we have anything more to discuss with you about this. Quale (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this user's contributions, it appears that chess is just one of many, many things on Wikipedia that apparently are not sufficiently biased towards India.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes because if I have a biast towards India then obvously I must be wrong. I mean if someone is telling factual things about how it should give India more credit or mentiong things about India then I must be wrong. Hey u guys have convinced me. So why dont we just put the article back to saying the modern game came from version and then mention India after. Cus thats how wikipedia is right? I mean some of other articles mention the orgin first. But when it comes to India lets mention that after then. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone highlight the word Indian in the start of the arcitle then? ?

Where it says chess originated from Indian version can you hightlight the word Indian then . . Thank you then here . . 71.105.87.54 (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• We generally do not highlight any words except the title in the lead section, as per the manual of style. Emphasis with italics is used if it is crucial for the understanding that this word stand out, but I cannot see at all why that should be the case here. Also, note that continuing to push for something (in this case, making India's role more prominent) long after the consensus has rejected it is bad form, and tiresome on editors who keep having to respond to it. Repeating it over and over will not generate any new results, and may be considered a form of disruptive editing (WP:HEAR). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sissa?

Why is there nothing in the article about the inventor of chess, Sissa, who asked to be rewarded with doubling amounts of grains of wheat[2], and was then executed by the king for his impudence? 98.82.22.154 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about documenting fictional tales made up for amusement! See wheat and chessboard problem for some coverage of the fable. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

westing game?

the queen sacrifice... Deathsculler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

Chess composition

Have removed the following information, as have been unable to find sources for it - issue raised at featured article review. Text variation also in Chess problem where it is also unsourced.

Most chess problems exhibit the following features:

• The position is composed, that is, it has not been taken from an actual game, but has been invented for the specific purpose of providing a problem.
• There is a specific stipulation, that is, a goal to be achieved; for example, to checkmate black within a specified number of moves.
• There is a theme (or combination of themes) that the problem has been composed to illustrate: chess problems typically instantiate particular ideas. Many of these themes have their own names, often by persons who used them first, for example Novotny or Lacny theme.
• The problem exhibits economy in its construction: no greater force is employed than that required to guarantee that the problem's intended solution is indeed a solution and that it is the problem's only solution.
• The problem has aesthetic value. Problems are experienced not only as puzzles but as objects of beauty. This is closely related to the fact that problems are organized to exhibit clear ideas in as economical a manner as possible.

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame that this comes out since I think it is accurate. I have thought of some more books that I have that might provide a reference, but don't count on it. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought Hooper (1992), p.319 could be used as a source since it mention some of those sentences. I think just the last sentence about aesthetic value it's not clearly mentioned. I'll read carefully tomorrow night other books to find a better source. Best regards.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Women's World Champion

Hello!

In Post-war era (1945 and later) section, all male world champion were mentioned but no female. Just Menchik was cited on previous section. I think its a good point to be improved. After WW2 soviet female player dominated world championship just like men did until 1990's. Best regards. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in the lead section it can mention that there are also women's world champion, Junior, Correspondence, and Blitz. (There is a blitz world championship, right?) Senior too? There are also national champions. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section neglects other chess competitions. It's not possible to explain then all but it could at least mention that exists categories such senior, junior, etc. Best Regards OTAVIO1981 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I listed some in the lead section (and the Olympiad). Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 23:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced bits

The general structure of a chess program is to search for moves and evaluate the resulting positions to find the best move. Many enhancements are necessary to achieve high performance. Some of those enhancements are minimax, alpha-beta pruning, killer heuristic, iterative deepening depth-first search, negascout, MTD-f, SSS*, null-move heuristic and late move reductions.

Been upable to source the above. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That is probably more detail than needs to be in this article anyway. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, removed above quotes sentences. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Armies

With these or similar hopes, chess is taught to children in schools around the world today and used in armies to train minds of cadets and officers

This armies claim is perhaps not even true. I have removed it but feel free to add it back with a suitable reference. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Resignation/Etiquette

How do you suggest I reference the bit about it being bad etiquette to continue playing when in a hopeless position? It's just one of those things... --jmenkus ^[T] 14:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember referencing it in another article. I'll look it up soon. (Can't right now.) Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in an article, But it is in Hooper & Whyld, under "resign", p. 336 in the second edition, "At the competent level it is considered discourteous to play on in a clearly lost position if the opponent is nor under time pressure..." I've also seen it in a couple of other sources. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, The Mammoth Book of Chess, by Burgess, 2nd edition, p. 481, "While it is bad etiquette to refuse to resign in a completely hopeless position, if you are in any doubt as to whether your position is hopeless, play on." Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --jmenkus ^[T] 17:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

this article should link to a LIST OF CHESS SOFTWARE page that should be created

Its perfectly reasonable to have this article link to a list of chess software programs. Im sure a list already exists somewhere. Im sure many people read this article hoping to find a quick safe and reputable link to a freeware chess program .( my thanks to the guy that posted a link for one in this discussion forum.) also links to chess software variations like gothic chess should possibly be included in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So do it yourself then. --jmenkus ^[T] 12:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)