Talk:Chess

Antichità

I would put on Predecessor Section of this article only a reference to numerous board games present in Mediterranen world in the classical antiquity. (Partian empire included). These games were widespread everywere: Egypt, Greece, Anatolia, Middle Orient, Partian Empire also in Centre Europe. The religious fanaticism was an enemy of the games in general, so probably we have lost the memory during dark age or more simply our sources are lost.

I propose newly the sentence in this form, help me to make it better. Numerous games on chessboard also with 8x8 squares, with military tactics were widespread in Classical Antiquity. In the Ludus latrunculorum the pieces is known to have several tasks: there were mandrae, the milites and bellatores.Bold text

About Alfonso X: Segunt cuenta en las ystorias antiguas en India la mayor ovo un Rey que amava mucho los sabios e tenielos siempre consigo e fazieles mucho amenudo razonar sobre los fechos que nascien delas cosas. E d’estos avie y tres que tenien señas razones....In Alfonso X period ystoria antiguas is Ancient history that could be Hellenistic, Seleucid, Partian or Sassanid o Roman empires period well before Arabs. So similar games could be arrived in Mediterranean very very early, before Arabs and Indian sources, generally from Orient, indeed India (latin and italian: Indie) that means Orient or better Asia not India as we use today. Indeed also Cristoforo Colombo arrived in Indie (America).

Another thing, the etymology of italian word “Alfiere” could have many origins. It could be arrived in italian language from Arab Al-Feris that means knight, but also from latin Ferens (soldier who has the flag in the army), north italy vulgar language el-ferens indeed Alfiere in the medieval army was exactly this, not a knight as for the Arabs. There is also another hypothesis that came from Alfido from Persian Fil, arab (Al-Fil), italian Alfido. The english version Bishop has another history. The word italian amazzare spain mattare that mean kill exist also in latin mactare. But there is a similar word in persian example Shah Mat. What is the origin ?

However we can find reference to contemporary chess also in Liber de moribus hominum et officiis nobilium super ludo scachorum simply De ludo Scachorum of domenicano Jacopo da Cessole 1300. There are also many manuscript codes with chess question of XIII century. (These are the chess that we play today) Lat. 241 della Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze (del XIII sec.). Lat. 10286 della Nazionale di Parigi, of Charles d’Orléans, and codice F. fr. 1173, with 348 questions. About this reference A. Chicco, Dizionario enciclopedico degli scacchi, Venezia. http://knol.google.com/k/loredana-mercuri/alfonso-x-libro-del-a%C3%A7edrex/ftp1rletdbsv/23#

The history of chess seems to be not univocal but more complicated and irresolved. There is the serious possibility that existed contemporary different versions and bit different rules. And Indian and Persian versions are only a local variant of a game widespread in world from immemorial time.

--Andriolo (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source for all of this?Jasper Deng (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have sources in italian language, about the etimology of "alfiere" http://www.etimo.it/?term=alfiere. There are lot to tell also about “Arocco or arrocco”. That probably came from Central Asia with Germanic invasions indeed “Rocca” is a castle (Rokke). Indeed the chariot in western version is a tower. Arrocco in Italian means “stay in the castle”.

And about the Jacopo Cessole XIII CE, the italian wikipedia site is better than english site, about the origin, it is possible to find in Cessole book:

".... the invention of the game of the chess come from philospher Xerses, to educate the Nabucodonosor 's son Evilmerodach....."

So for Cessole the origin of the chess come back to ancient Mesopotamia. The king of Babil. He says that the western chess are a metaphor of the feudal society, and with this idea he explains the movements and class position. We know that today the chess use the same chessboard of “Dama”. We know that Romans play lot of Ludus tabularis in the thermae also in the Dama type chessboard (that we use for chess) that was widespread in mediterranean. But there were also "abacus" type chessboard. In italy we have different type of cards for card games in every city so why not for the boards ?

In the latin wikipedia there is a summa about ludus lantruculorum: Latrunculi, aut ludus latrunculorum, est ludus tabularis qui in Roma antiqua ludebatur. Non erat scaccorum ludus. Sed postea saepe verbum "latrunculi" usum est significare scaccorum ludum. Uterque lusor sedecim calculos vel milites habuit, qui super abacum lineis libratis atque directis distributum movebantur. Lusores quam plurimos calculos adversarii demere aut includere conabantur. Praecepta lusoria incerta sunt. Tabula lusoria lignea erat aut in lapidem incidebatur (exempli gratia in Basilicae Iuliae gradus). Calculi albi aut nigri, politi aut caniculati, ex ossibus aut vitro vario fabricati erant. Trimalchio ille homo affectatus pro calculis aureos argenteosque denarios habebat. It isn’t scaccorum ludus, but the similarities are a lot, it cannot to pass in silence in this article. Qui super abacum lineis libratis lines of abaco, more similar Chinese chessboard. The English wikipedia of Latrunculi, site give an idea. But seem that existed lot of versions as in this spanish site: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/ES:Latrunculi

About other war games in tabula see http://www.dilos.com/region/crete/chess.html.

About etymology of India in neo-latin languages: For Alfonso X, India means the same of ancient greek language India. India is all Asia beyond the know world. In Renaissance we use the word Western India for America, Oriental India for India Subcontinent but also for Indonesia, Indo-China (Siam), Borneo and South China. For venetian merchants only North China was Catai. So when Alfonso X think “a king of India” he think an enormous area, all south Asia until Pacific Ocean. The Persian area until Hormuz in Alfonso X era, was a familiar world for western medieval merchants there were agents and colonies of tuscany and venetian companies in Tabriz and Hormuz also in Central Asia as Urgenc. Probably in the evening, along the Silk Road, when the multi-etnics carovanas stopped or arrived in a Serraglio there are lot of occasions to play togethers.

I have no time, but soon I must find a book of Chicchi. Storia degli scacchi. --Andriolo (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)--

PS: I see that the first archeological findings about chatrang (the real primitive archeological chess in appareance but not with modern rules and probably with board chinese type) is in Silk road.

About probable influence of Ludus Lantruculorum or Petteia, it is a very old question there are book of Aurelio Severino (Tarsia 1580 – Napoli 1656) He is not agree with the hypotesis of Lantruculorum origin. Chicchi, supports the hypothesis of India subcontinent but in a curious way. He argues that chess born in India because the culture was oral and so the chess are borned from an instrument to recorder points. So the things are very very intricated and a clear origin is impossible to find. The chess could be arrived with Silk Road in Italy or from Andalusia in Spain we don't know. Surely the mediterranean Ludus tabularis has influenced it.

My idea is only to put a reference in the article (predecessor section) on chessboard games in mediterranean world, surely in modern chess the king capture style is very very similar Lantruculorum. ---- Andriolo

http://books.google.com/books?id=uzUXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13&sig=BN49iHCjfHWKF6fmAc_HnGrm9I0&hl=it#v=onepage&q&f=false This book says that central Asia was the place of bigger popular diffusion. it says abot Chess during Teodorico kingdom (but i think it is latruculorum but Teodorico is a gothic king and we know that the gothics are arrived from Steppes.) About the diffusion in Arab world. The bishop come etimology come from England (Germanic area). Other thing some versions of lantruculorum have two raw for color and differnt form. The disposition of the pieces in chatrang is very different respect modern chess.--Andriolo (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC) If the game is born in India subcontinent, see legend of Sissa it must be most older than Gupta empire to explain the temporal contradictions and the lantriculorum influences in western side. it must be arrived when the latriculorum was played.--Andriolo (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC) But that is original research.

The best place to start with this would be in the more specialized History of chess article, more specifically at Talk:History of chess where you are more likely to be able to start a discussion with editors with interest in and knowledge of the origins of chess. If you achieve consensus to update that article then it would be easier to make a change in this main article. I will say here that although I am interested in whatever sources you can show for an alternative theory, the evidence for an Indian origin of the immediate predecessor to modern chess around 600 CE is very strong and this has been essentially settled for nearly 100 years. See A History of Chess. Quale (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would only to throw the stone in the pond. Indeed the english articles of history of chess, is too much categorical. Some more “perhaps”…… it will make it better. I will try. I am see that I am not alone in my thesys. You're right, the hypothesis of the subcontinent (not Asia), is British and was born with the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and is based on Indian legends written, however several centuries after the facts. (The first indian source of chatrang are witten in XII century). In the sameway why not in Ancient Babil ? (An italian legend say that) However the chess until the Italian Renaissance, in Latin, were called Ludus latrincolorum so we are unable to say if gothic Teodorico il Grande (500CE) played chess or latruculorum. The mention of latruculorum as chess appared in Europe in sources of c.a. 900-1000 CE with the end of dark age. This mix of terminology has caused lot of problems.

Archaeology tells us two things: 1) the most ancient findings of boards that we use in chess are in the Mediterranean area (8x8 chessboard with two colors used probably for Dama). [[File:scacchiera2-300x231.jpg]] This is only one of innumerable examples. It is in pubblic area in Brescia in some roman ruins on Foro. The black is X. 2) the first discoveries of chatrang that we have are in Uzbekistan (c.a. 700 CE Uzbeckistan was India at wide sense, in this period) I remember that Scythian kings was considered Indians for greeks and also for the hellenized Parthian and Sassanid empire. As for Alfonso X.

The central Asia origin, in the Silk Road, between Caspian Sea until Afganistan (in area influenced from Parthian or Sassanid empire), I think can explain lot of things and the possibility for other steppic tribe as the germanic Goths to play chess before the Arabs. Ciao. --Andriolo (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

History clarification

The early history is very unclear. It's impossible to learn when the rules were standardised and how. It is also thought that Chess may have been invented during the winter solstice in Russia. Turkeyphan^t 19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Shatranj / Chaturanga

In the first paragraph, it is suggested that the evolution of Chess derives from the Indian game Shatranj. It should be noted that when you click on Shatranj, it is clear to see that this name is used for the Persian derivative. The term that should be there instead is Chaturanga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsv (talk • contribs) 06:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

confused

Am I to believe that apart from the queen and rook being able to move further across the board, the game itself hasn't changed much since its creation in India?

Not really...Jasper Deng (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It has changed a lot. The rook and knight moves are the same. The king move is the same except for castling. The bishop and queen moves are very different. Pawn promotion is different. The two-square initial pawn move has been added and en passant along with it. What it takes to win a game has changed. The result of stalemate has changed. Conditions for draws have changed. Rules of chess has a history section. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly agree that the game has changed a lot. Determining the history of board games is messy, there will be a point when a game is unambiguously referred to in literature and there are often evolutionary changes beyond that point. in the case of chess the game's origins predate the first reference in literature by several hundred years.

If I remember correctly the Lewis chessmen despite having 78 pieces don't make a complete set and also contains extra pieces that would be additional to the standard pieces. The wikipedia information on Chaturanga is misleading as the game being described in the article is not the game that is attributed as the ancestor of chess. Instead, it is the evolution of the original game of that name and modern chess as it is now played.

Basically all of the traditional games evolve and like species it is a question of finding archaeological artifacts and speculation as to the links. While almost all sources currently attribute chess's origins to India, there is an issue with Xiangqi and there is a common proto-game that has been lost. The simpler the game rules the less they change and before the rules are written down it is largely speculation as to how any game was played.Tetron76 (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Does this article really need protection? I'd like to make some edits. -SC (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Once you become autoconfirmed (10 edits and 4 days), you can edit this. We often protect these pages because of vandalism or other disruptive editing.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made some needed changes to the intro. -SC (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

forced mate

forced mate... yeah: progressive depth search

or end to begin branch n bound: the real big problem, please!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.118.212.93 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

none of these pages have a section on forced mate. I've been putting my feelers out to see where that would lend itself the best. maybe several of the articles need anything from a blurb to a full scale section devoted to it? what do we think?Scottdude2000 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• The basic forced mates are covered in Checkmate#Basic checkmates, and there is even a separate article for Bishop and knight checkmate. Regarding other forced checkmates, we have some articles in Category:Chess checkmates. However, an extensive list of all possible forced checkmate patterns is not possible, there are simply too many patterns to make any reasonable catalogue over them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Chess psychology

Wow - there's a Featured article First-move advantage in chess, but *no* article Chess psychology !? (I see the section on psychology in current article; great topic, lots of resources. If the section were spun off to a Start-class article, would that help motivate someone qualified to expand? Or are sections spinoff-able only when they grow big?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to create a separate article on chess psychology. Even if there is no one volunteering today to expand it, there may be someone in the future, and that will be much easier for him if a separate article exists already. So I would say: go ahead ! SyG (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Chess aesthetics

Why did you undo my last edit? What did you mean by this: "Edit to make consistent with Chess aesthetics, as rewue"? Azlan Iqbal 05:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

That was a typo. "Rewue" should be "request". In the edit comment to your edit to chess at Dec. 27, 19:32, you said "If you are going to do this (COI), then I insist you also delete the entire entry on chess aesthetics. Or keep both. Be consistent." The entry on chess aesthetics was deleted so I deleted it at chess, as you wanted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My "request" was that you delete the whole chess aesthetics page if you think there is a COI from my single sentence at the "chess" page because I essentially wrote that whole "chess aesthetics" page. By the way, that single sentence at "chess" has been edited so there is no reference whatsoever to my own publication. Azlan Iqbal 05:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

The chess article is for a very general audience - it is not an academic paper. What you added is inappropriate. Read what people are telling you in the edit summaries and on your talk page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I *have* read them and have made appropriate changes. Some (including you) have even made changes to the "chess aesthetics" page with no objections from me. Why is my one line on the "chess" page still inappropriate? I provided a dozen references (that are not my own) to illustrate the relevance of computational chess aesthetics and automatic problem composition. The section on the "chess" page otherwise makes no mention of this. The general audience will be (wrongly) inclined to think that computer scientists over the decades have accomplished nothing more than making computers *play* chess.--Azlan Iqbal 05:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

What Bubba73 means is the way you wrote it. See our manual of style.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So why don't one of you rewrite it instead of just throwing everything out?--Azlan Iqbal 06:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

Let's be civil please. Given your close connection with the subject (a COI), I'd highly advise that you do not try to do this directly, but suggest on the talk page only. This part of chess is very non-notable.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Right - I was just about to say that. Putting it in the chess article would not be balanced, compared to the rest of the article. Also, it is your (Azlan Iqbal) opinion that it is so important, and your original research. Wikipedia mainly relies on secondary sources, not primary sources, so it would be better if a book or periodical written by someone else examined the issue. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should rely on reliable sources (e.g. reputable publications on the subject); otherwise, the material is going to be out-of-date (decades out of date, even). It could take years before "someone else" bothers to write on Wikipedia about it. I have presented you with many reliable references on the subject that span decades. I have removed my own (latest) reference on the subject. I have even welcomed what I think are reasonable changes to "my" chess aesthetics page. I don't know what else to do to convince you all that all this is worth one line of mention on the "chess" page.--Azlan Iqbal 06:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

You have no right to act like you own a page you create. My issue is the undue weight you are putting on this part of chess.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

← Azlan, you need to put this on the chess talk page. The other editors involved may not see it here.

As far as "other writers", that doesn't mean other Wikipedia editors, it means secondary sources. The opinion of five neutral editors seems to be that it isn't important enough to be included in the chess article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I provided a dozen references (excluding my own) to back my claim of the subject's "weight" (to justify its one line, that is). Can any of you explain why you think it's still not relevant? (By the way, can someone with more experience move this to the proper talk page? Thanks).--Azlan Iqbal 06:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The reference count simply doesn't matter when you consider that there are probably thousands of references on the other parts of chess.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, this is a general article, not academic research. The references you gave appear to be primary sources, not secondary sources. I see four problem areas:

1. wp:COI a conflict of interest - you are talking about your research
2. wp:OR this is related to #1, but Wikipecia is not a publisher of original research, and what you have done is original research
3. wp:secondary the sources need to be independent secondary sources.
4. WP:UNDUE undue weight on such a specialized topic in a general article.

I'm going to bed.Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I have removed any references to my original research, as requested. I cited only work that came before what I did (we're talking about the one line on the "chess" page here, not the "chess aesthetics" page). So the first two problem areas are not relevant. I don't understand the third one. You mean I cannot cite other peoples research? As for the number of references, it does not matter if there is just one or a thousand reputable references for the subject. It has been documented and belongs (i.e. worth a mention) in the "mathematics and computers" section.--Azlan Iqbal 06:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

It's original research for you to be making the claim of advances in chess aesthetics. For secondary sources, you must get sources from people who are generally outside this field. It hasn't been documented enough. Simple as that. WP:IDHTJasper Deng (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Those other references deal with aesthetics as well as problem composition. My paper is not even in the references. For the second point, you are saying that as a researcher in this field, I am not fit to even write what others have done in it? What do you mean by "documented enough"? Does Wikipedia have a specific number of references required for every claim in a sentence or is this just your view? I have seen pages on medical subjects with just one reference in a line. You're making such a big deal and crying about standards over a small section on chess??--Azlan Iqbal 06:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

Exactly. It's a small section. It's not a big 2000KB section. It's not that your reference is in there, it's that the other references are still too close to this subject. It's not the reference count that's the problem, it's the reference type, the amount of weight you are giving it, your conflict of interest. One good reference suffices, and the question here is the quality of your references. Also, SineBot labels your comments unsigned because you did not link to your contributions (Special:Contributions/Azlan Iqbal), your userpage, nor your user talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, if one of you were to do exactly what I have done on the "chess" page, it would be okay?--Azlan Iqbal 07:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Every point raised by Bubba73 except COI would still be valid.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how. Point (2) does not apply because I never referenced my "original research" nor is the subject new. Point (3) would be remedied if one of you wrote on the page exactly what I did. Or would a "reference" such as this or "Emil Vlasák (2009). Computer Recognition of Beauty in Chess, Computer News, EG, Alexander Rueb Vereniging voor Schaakeindspelstudie (ARVES), The Netherlands, No. 175, Vol. XV, Jan, pp. 31-36. ISSN 0012-7671" be required? Point (4) can be remedied with a warning like at the top of the "chess aesthetics" page, which I already invited Bubba73 to also place on the "chess" page, if he think necessary.--Azlan Iqbal 07:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

Read the Wikipedia policies we keep referring to:

• Wikipedia:No original research
• WP:SECONDARY
• WP:ORIGINALSYN
• wp:undue Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A warning is just to point out that something is wrong, not that it has been fixed.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read them. Have you? Did you consider the two "indirect" references I provided above? Here they are again.

1. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5730
2. Emil Vlasák (2009). Computer Recognition of Beauty in Chess, Computer News, EG, Alexander Rueb Vereniging voor Schaakeindspelstudie (ARVES), The Netherlands, No. 175, Vol. XV, Jan, pp. 31-36. ISSN 0012-7671

As for neutrality, research into chess aesthetics and automatic problem composition has existed (refer those 12 publications I provided) long before my own work in the area (which, again, I didn't cite). I don't see anything wrong with having a mention of chess aesthetics and automatic problem composition because it relates to both machines and chess. The section is lacking in information (potentially misleads, in fact) and should not be kept that way. It deserves at least a line of mention. That's my view.--Azlan Iqbal (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This does not even deserve one complete sentence. Maybe a See Also entry.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have provided both arguments and references to support my position. You just keep claiming there are violations and the subject is not important (which is it, really?). Any sound arguments to support your position for a change?--Azlan Iqbal (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is obviously very important to you - it was the subject of your PhD dissertation, right? But I don't think that a computer program that can generate three-move checkmate problems with some measure of aesthetics is important enough to include in the main article about chess. I think the other editors feel the same way. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the computer program that I developed or my doctoral work. It's about the decades of work that has gone into computational chess aesthetics and automatic problem composition. It should not be completely ignored on this main chess page. If you don't want to link to the chess aesthetics page for whatever reason, then fine; but I really think the subject is worth a mention in the "mathematics and computers" section because the work has, in fact, been done by myself and many others (worldwide) before me. In my view, it is wrong for the main page to convey the idea that it has always been just about chess playing when it comes to computers and chess.--Azlan Iqbal (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't convey what you think it does. Have your view, but we cannot accept that at the moment.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's more a question of what the page currently doesn't convey. Anyone (e.g. kids, teenagers) who visits the main page to learn about chess and computers will be misled into thinking that all scientists have ever done with regard to the game is to make computers play chess. They will think that there exists algorithms only to play the game and do nothing else related to it. However you slice it, the page is at worst misleading, at best out of date. "Lack of importance" is true of many things - perhaps even chess itself - but on this page, I think advances other than in the area of playing is worth a mention. Have it your way. I'm tired of debating the obvious.--Azlan Iqbal (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think people go to this page to learn about "chess and computers". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This would go better into the problem composing article, in fact. This is just incomprehensible to someone who doesn't know the game. I don't think it's worth a mention, period.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Have been following the discussion - which seems to have died down now - as it is fascinating and helps me learn about WP policy. I hope is okay if I add some thoughts, observations, and ask some Qs too (not in any particular order) ...
Q1) Is if fair to say that the chief barrier to introduction of the mention of computers & chess aesthetics study that Azlan has been lobbying for, is WP:UNDUE? (Because, he did produce a secondary source w/ the Chessbase article.)
Q2) Azlan, ealier you were insisting if no mention (above) is includable, then for consistency the Chess aesthetics article s/b removed. Is it fair to say at some point you changed your view on that? (I know things changed in the meantime, the aesthetics article was modified, and a disclaimer added. If you changed your view, was because of those?)
Q3) Jasper, earlier you suggested it might be acceptable to add a 'See also' entry for the aesthetic article. I was thinking the same possibility a day ago (but, when I looked at the items currently in 'See also', they all seem to be about chess itself, not a study into some aspect of chess, etc.). Do you still think it might be acceptable to add aesthetics as a 'See also' item? (No one responded to your idea suggestion when it was made.)
Q4) Idea re regrouping ... Bubba mentioned that no one is expected to go to the Chess article, looking for info on "chess and computers". I agree. But a section on "Mathematics and computers" exists here, with info on both math and computer investigations and computer play advancement topic. Does that raise the question whether that section, and those topics, better belong in article Chess and computers (which is a REDIRECT to Computer chess)!? And a corresponding 'See also' entry in the Chess article to Chess and computers!? And maybe have the math section over there as well!? (In other words, make the Computers and chess article have multi-sections for these topics!? Currently that article seems to be 99 percent about computers and 'playing' chess, if the article were restructured to contain other math and computer-related chess topics, maybe the materials in Chess article, if retained, could be reduced to brief summaries!?)
Q5) Azlan, why haven't you made the same lobby effort, regarding the article Chess and computers? Did you plan to later? Why didn't the effort to include aesthetic research start with that article? (Because to be consistent, if you believe absence of mention implies or misleads computers and chess is all about 'playing', then that argument certainly holds over at the Chess and computers article, too, yes?)
Q6) Azlan, I understand your objective side feels there is no mention in non-Chess aesthetics articles of a valid body of work that has existed and exists, but you must also recognize that you do have an ego side that does show through occasionally as well, for example, here are two statements you've made which don't balance, in my view: 1) "It's not about the computer program that I developed or my doctoral work. It's about the decades of work that has gone into computational chess aesthetics and automatic problem composition." 2) (From Chessbase interview) "Previous work in the area, going back some 80 years, was comparatively rudimentary and lacked experimental rigor when it came down specifically to aesthetics."  (If I may be so bold, I would guess that you would agree with the statement, that your research into the matter pretty much has a preponderence of value equal or exceeding all other work in the area which has gone on prior, combined! Nothing wrong with that, but suggesting there's nothing about *you* here individually of emphasis or significance, that there has been a history of research effort of which you are only a continuation of or small part of, is not what you truly feel. No offense intended!)

Thx for any responses on my thoughts and Qs. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Q2) Yes, you are correct.
• Q5) I actually never knew about the Chess and computers article. If it was somewhere on the main Chess page, I must have missed it. I saw the "Mathematics and computers" section but never realized the relevance of the "See also" links. Frankly, I'm now unsure where information about computers and efforts into technologies and algorithms other than chess-playing belongs.
• Q6) I apologize if I came off that way. The ChessBase and EG magazine articles are from 2009. I've had more time since then to go over some of the references in more detail now and I realize that reasonably sophisticated work into approaches toward chess in areas other than just playing the game have taken place, especially in the late 1980s, 1990s and mid 2000s. It's actually comparatively easy (now) for computers to play the game, but in these other areas, we're not that far along. I prefer not to comment on how advanced my own work in the area may be. I shouldn't be the one to comment on it, in any case.--Azlan Iqbal (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your last comment is the point of having a secondary source. Besides the COI issue, your papers are primary sources. Wikipedia uses secondary sources - someone else who has looked at your work, evaluated it, summarized it, and thought it worthy. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and the Chessbase ref is actually pretty weak, it is merely like a "news item" with interview. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No response on Q3. Proposal-suggestion: how about including 'See also' link to Chess aesthetics in three articles: Chess, Chess and computers, and Chess problems? It is just a suggestion. That would still leave a question about consistency that a "Math" section in Chess seems a bit out of place – as no one goes to Chess article for that as has been earlier noted. (How is it much different from aesthetics research, when neither deals directly about 'playing'?!) Spin-off "Math" as its own article!? like "Chess aesthetics" and "Chess and computers" have their own articles?) There are a lot of ideas and ways to go, probably ending up in a bit of reconfigure work too. It seems to me to do nothing leaves behind an inconsistent state of affairs. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I see a link to Chess aesthetics was already added to Chess problem back in September. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Q1 Yes as far as I am concerned, the question is whether the addition of Azlan is important enough to be in the Chess article. In my opinion, it is not. That is because computers are already a side-aspect of chess, chess composition is also a side-aspect, so the contribution of computers to chess composition is not significant enough to be in the main Chess article. SyG (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Logical! Would it be appropriate do you think for Chess aesthetics to be a "See also" item in articles Chess problem and/or Computer chess? (Or, even instead a section in one or both those articles? [I know aesthetics is already a wl'd term in the Chess problem article.]) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to me that would certainly do. SyG (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok!: Added Chess aesthetics to "See also" sections in articles Computer chess and Chess problem. Ditto for a third article I discovered in the process: Software for handling chess problems. (Chess problem had a section "Computers and chess problems" with "Main page" hatnote referring to that article, and with no other content, so I converted that section to "See also" for Software for handling chess problems.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Variants: One more line.

To the person who locked the article, I would like added another point in the variant section that would read like this:

• Variants that make use of multiple boards, such as 3D Chess or Alice Chess.
  
  24.79.40.48 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, I have added your examples to the text. SyG (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Improvement to Chess Template

I think we have many chess articles, but the current chess template is quite basic. We could expand it to include many articles on chess, which would greatly discoverability and ease of navigation. I have updated the current chess template in my sandbox - User:Abhishikt/sandbox. Can you guys take a look at that and let me know your comments/suggestion. Please note that it is still work in progress. Abhishikt (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I did my bit of improvement to the template and updated it. A goal in updating template was to improve discoverability, so I have tried to incorporate many articles, so there could be more important terms, which are part of an article present in template, but are not mentioned separately. Abhishikt (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Persian Origin of Chess

Professor Lewis is a prominent scholar in middle eastern studies so when he says that chess was invented by Persians his opinion should be considered. Please note the most reliable sources in Wikipedia are: [peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses]. Iranic (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)