Talk:Double check

Triple check example

it's not clear the triple check example...anyway it doesn't exists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.89.23 (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a diagram, but I used dots for moas. The moas move one square diagonally and then one square orthogonally, and can't jump over. Once the bishop moves, both moas (and the rook) check the black king. Bubba73 (talk), 18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double check example

	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

Gundersen-Faul, 1928. Double check with piece being moved not giving check. Game finished: 14...g5 15.hxg6#.

Here is an example from a game of a double check with the piece being moved not giving check. Reference: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1242924 -- B.D.Mills (T, C) 06:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reproduce the full game here:

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 cxd4?! 5. cxd4 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. Nf3 Nge7 8. Bd3 0-0? 9. Bxh7+! Kxh7 10. Ng5+ Kg6 11. h4! Nxd4 12. Qg4 f5 13. h5+ Kh6 14. Nxe6+ g5 15. hxg6# (1-0). Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should go in the article. (It is also in en passant.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoublePlusUnGood

The FIDE Laws of Chess Appendix C says that "++" signifies checkmate. Unless someone has a citation that supports it, I am going to remove "In chess notation, it is often symbolized by '++'." from the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Tactics for Kids and How to Beat Your Dad at Chess, as well as John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book, use ++.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that Chess Tactics for Kids, How to Beat Your Dad at Chess and John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book. do not follow the laws of chess. The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Chess notation is that Wikipedia will follow the laws of chess. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I worded that rather poorly. What I am getting at is that we need to present the usage found in Chess Tactics for Kids, How to Beat Your Dad at Chess and John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book as fringe (and possibly non-notable) viewpoints and the official USCF and FIDE rules as the mainstream. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, USCF uses # for checkmate, and not ++.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. See the second to the last page at http://www.rookhouse.com/rules/docs/uscf_rules.pdf --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If their official ''Chess Life'' uses it, which it does, I don't believe that. Whatever the rules say, it is impractical to follow those conventions, especially on this article. ++ in my opinion is actually used very little outside of double check-related articles, and the use is not consistent. --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your argument here is. The facts are these:

[1] USCF and FIDE allow you to use # or ++ to signify checkmate.

[2] USCF and FIDE (and a bunch of other sources) almost always use # for checkmate, which in no way implies forbidding the use of ++ for checkmate, which is explicitly allowed.

[3] USCF and FIDE both forbid using ++ to signify double check. (++, along with the far more commonly used #, is reserved for signifying checkmate and thus cannot be used to signify double check.) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to follow their rules, do we? Besides, it's less intuitive for the reader if we use only single + for double checks. If needed we can add a note on the notation used in this article to clarify this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have to follow their rules. What we have to do is to fairly report what the sources say about using ++ to signify double check. Also, you need a citation to a reliable source that says one is more intuitive than the other, at which point we can report what the source said. This is all explained in WP:V. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're talking about sources, then the vast majority of my own (book) sources use ++, so there's no argument over intuitiveness.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that # is also acceptable I think we should change it to day that ++ can be an acceptable way to denote checkmate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calcoolidgefan (talk • contribs) 18:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]