Talk:Glossary of chess/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Coffee House chess

This is new to me and I couldn't find many references. This reference http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/cofftactics.html describes something notably different than the article. I prefer removal of this term because I don't believe it to be common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.202.11.30 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this from the fianchetto entry:

Considered dubious by some as it clusters the rook-bishop-knight trio; thereby severely restricting their mobility, especially early in the game.

I don't see how fianchettoing the bishop restricts the mobility of the knight or the rook - both can be developed just as they could if the bishop had been developed elsewhere. I don't know of any writers (not modern ones anyway) who consider fianchettoing in general to be dubious (but of course, it isn't always the best way to develop the bishop). --Camembert

---

Double check was mentioned as only possible by discovering a check by moving a piece which also gives check. This is incorrect, I put the archetypal counterexample in: (small letters=black, capital letters=white)

8........
7........
6.......k
5......pP
4.....B.R
3........
2........
1.......K
,abcdefgh

black has just played the pawn from e7 to e5 (in reply to check by white bishop). Now white playes pawn takes pawn en passant which gives a double check by rook and bishop.

Thanks for fixing that - you're quite right of course. Since I think it's better to stick to quite short explanations on this page with more detailed reserved for separate articles, I will probably move the bulk of what you've written to a new double check article (and prettify the diagrams) later tonight (unless somebody else gets there first, that is). --Camembert

Dumbbells

About this:

Dumbbells: Two pieces which mutually defend one another, particularly a bishop placed diagonally in front of a pawn of the same color.

This is a new one to me. I can't find the word "dumbbells" used like this in any of my books, nor anywhere on the web. Could somebody give a source? --Camembert

No reference forthcoming, so I've taken it out. --Camembert 15:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Armageddon

Armageddon: "White also has less time than black ... White has six minutes, Black five." This sentence appears to be internally inconsistent. Could somebody who knows what they are talking about fix this?

Fixed. --Camembert 15:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

King's tomb

I've removed the King's tomb entry but saved it below with a spelling correction. I'm not familiar with King's Tomb. It isn't part of the standard rules of chess. If this is a fantasy variant or a chess problem, it should be clearly explained or put in chess problem terminology instead. Quale 21:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• King's Tomb: A move that may only be performed once per game, wherein a player may exchange the positions of his king and any other piece he has on the board (including his king). Only Black may perform this move.

I've never heard of it, and the official rulebook doesn't mention it. Someone probably made it up and stuck it there. 24.226.77.23 (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pig/Hog

Bruce Pandolfini refers to a rook on its seventh rank by these terms: is this usage encyclopedic?Lkjhgfdsa 15:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read of two rooks on the seventh rank being called "blind pigs" (I think in Nimzowitsch's My System?). I haven't heard the term used for just one of them. Krakatoa 03:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Swindle

Someone should really do an article on "Swindle (chess)." If I can dredge up my copies of "Chess Traps, Pitfalls and Swindles" and maybe Frank Marshall's game collection, I'll do it if no one beats me to it. I did a Google search trying to find a good collection of swindles on the Internet, and didn't see anything. One pretty good example of a swindle is a game between Karpov and Csom 20 or so years ago. Csom was crushing the hell out of Karpov, played one careless move, and Karpov produced an amazing resource that won the game for him. Krakatoa probably at 03:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Schlecter

This probably isn't the right place to put this entreaty, but someone should also do an article on poor Karl Schlecter. The guy drew a world championship match with Lasker, for God's sake (and came within a hair's-breadth of winning it). Krakatoa 03:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Schlecter: This game should be in the article on him, of course: Fleissing-Schlecter, Vienna 1893 1.b4 e6 2.Bb2 Nf6 3.a3 c5 4.b5 d5 5.d4 Qa5+ 6.Nc3 Ne4 7.Qd3 cxd4 8.Qxd4 Bc5 9.Qxg7 Bxf2+ 10.Kd1 d4 11.Qxh8+ Ke7 12.Qxc8 dxc3 13.Bc1 Nd7 14.Qxa8 Qxb5 15.Bf4 Qd5+ 16.Kc1 Be3+ 17.Bxe3 Nf2 18.Bxf2 Qd2+ 19.Kb1 Qd1+ 20.Ka2 Qxc2# 0-1 Krakatoa 07:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Since March 2004 we've had Carl Schlechter (not terrific, but better than nothing). I guess we need some redirects... --Camembert 01:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Woops! Guess I should learn to spell. :-) Thanks. Krakatoa 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconds

Could someone define "seconds" as in the assistants who aid chess players? What do they do exactly? It's really hard to search for this term since "second" appears in so many other chess contexts (time added to a clock, second rank, etc.). Thanks. --Myke Cuthbert 18:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 09:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Zwischenzug and Zugzwang

I removed a sentence connecting Zwischenzug with Zugzwang since I don't think it was accurate. The page said

• Zwischenzug (from the German): An "in-between" move played before the expected reply. Often used to force the opponent into Zugzwang.

Our Zwischenzug article doesn't support this, and I don't think it's generally true, so I removed the "Often used ..." sentence. I mention this here in case anyone thinks I am the one who is mistaken. Quale 18:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

List or no list?

Should this article be a list? Compare to List of cricket terms or List_of_figure_skating_terms. Note that we would have to change the layout slightly Wikipedia:Lists#Definition lists. We could in that case nominate it for Wikipedia:Featured_lists. Voorlandt 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• My preference is to change the layout to use the standard WP:LIST#Definition lists format. Quale 02:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Forgot to mention that we might also want to change the page name to List of chess terms. Quale 18:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have changed the layout now. I agree with the name change. Voorlandt 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have also moved the page now, since nobody else seem to disagree. If you want to move it back please discuss it first here Voorlandt 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fianchetto

This word can be considered borrowed into English, at least as concerns chess jargon, and as such it is subject to English word-formation processes (to wit, a particular verb-forming process), just like any other borrowed word. It is no more correct or useful to assert that to fianchetto is a "misuse" than it is to assert that a bottle of shampoo is a misuse since the original Hindi word was a verb. I've changed the text accordingly. It is worth noting that the Italian is a noun, however, and that has been left in. 24.95.48.112 08:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for this clarification. Quale 09:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Solus rex

I think perhaps "solus rex" is a composition term. I've never heard it used in regular chess, although it's possible that it is or was applied to old rules that made winning all your opponents pieces and pawns a way to win the game. (The most common way, I believe, in the Indian version of chess. Single move pawns, generally weaker pieces (especially the queen) and maybe more restrictive pawn promotion rules made checkmate difficult.) Does anyone know if this term should be moved to chess problem terminology? Quale 17:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have moved it for now, the references I could find all relate to chess problems.Voorlandt 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

ENDGAME SOLVED FOR 6 OR 7 pieces?

This article says: "Endgame tablebase A computerized database of endgames with up to 7 pieces, providing perfect play for both players, and thus completely solving those endgames."

While http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase says: "The analysis of all endgames with up to six pieces (including the two kings) was completed in 2006. ... Research on seven-piece tablebases is ongoing and may be completed by the end of 2015.[7] " I'm confused. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks. 81.184.56.47 (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The six-piece tablebases have been completed, except for king + four pieces versus a lone king. Some seven-piece endgames have been completed, but it is going to take a few years (and terrabytes of data) to finish them. Bubba73 (talk), 05:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anchors and linking to this page

We link to this page from a number of chess articles, and should probably link to it even more. One difficulty is that the link targets aren't very specific: to link to brilliance prize, the best we can do is list of chess terms#B. This becomes less and less desirable as this page grows since the section anchors can be far from the desired link target.

This could be fixed by using HTML anchors. There is a template for this (Template:anchor), but it might be clumsy to use for our purposes. Does anyone have any ideas on how we might improve linking to this page? Quale 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Amending B section to normal headings. list of chess terms#Brilliancy prize now works. Downside is perhaps space below title? Will investigate further. ChessCreator (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it acceptable if the explanation is indented. This seems like a solution. ChessCreator (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The change works well and was much needed. Now there are thousands of links to "List of chess terms#X" that need to be updated. Bubba73 (talk), 05:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope there aren't thousands. Well, actually it would be nice if we were that well linked, but I think there are only about 100 pages that link here, although some of those pages will have several chess terms links. Quale (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprized that there are so few, since I think I probably put in 50 or so, And some of the ones there don't need to be updated. Bubba73 (talk), 15:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There are over 150 that link here through chess terminology (the old name of the article), and many of the articles have more than one link, so there are probably several hundred. Bubba73 (talk), 02:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of them link through chess terminology. I'm wondering if the name of this page should be changed to Chess terminology or chess terms (or leave it as it is, of course). Bubba73 (talk), 23:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I had thought this myself. It would be nice to have a shorter name. There may well be a reason it's a list however, there seems to be a lot of pages starting list of although a similar useful page Chess problem terminology does not. ChessCreator (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on changing some of the "list of chess terms#X" to link to the actual term. I would prefer to have a better title for this article to keep from having to type "list of", so my first choice is "chess terms" and my second choice is "chess terminology". Either change will require quite a few changes in articles, however. Bubba73 (talk), 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer "Chess terms"(all article names start with a capital I think(?)) also. Have asked User:Voorlandt to comment because it's naming maybe for some automation reason. ChessCreator (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent), Yes I meant starting with a cap. But I found out that "chess terminology#Whatever" works to link directly to the term, even though "chess terminology doesn't have the section. So it will be easier to change than I thought. I don't see any reason for the "list of". It is more than a simple list - it has definitions plus a few diagrams and images. I think the article used to be "chess terminology". I haven't asked Voorlandt about the naming convention, but I don't see why it should be "list of" - it is really a glossary. Bubba73 (talk), 00:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

List of chess topics is definitely a list, but this article is more. Bubba73 (talk), 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a copy from my reply to ChessCreator: Hi, you asked whether there was a reason to start the article with 'List of...'. The reason is here [1] Basically, this article is not a regular article, but rather a list. And in wikipedia, lists start with 'List of..'. It sound a little derogatory to call it a list, but in fact, the title 'list' does not say anything about its merit or quality. There are even featured lists, see Wikipedia:Featured_lists. I think this article could make it as featured list, provided someone is willing (and has the time) to nominate, correct and defend it. Regards, Voorlandt (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC). As I said above, see other similar articles List of figure skating terms and List of cricket terms Voorlandt (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think all of those are more than a list since they include definitions. I'd call it a glossary. Bubba73 (talk), 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Noticed that "chess terms#Whatever" works as there is a redirect from 'Chess Terms' to 'List of Chess Terms' anyway. ChessCreator (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this list qualifies as a glossary. There doesn't seem to be a universal naming standard for glossaries (see Portal:Contents/List of glossaries), although "Glossary of ..." seems to be a popular choice (see Category:Glossaries). Voorlandt and I discussed this a while back. I suggested the rename to List of chess terms, but maybe it isn't the best. Quale (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Simplify headings

Some of the headings are quite complex. These have given me several edit to get them correct as the '#link' must match the wording of the heading exactly to work.

• Win/winning position
• Time pressure, time trouble or zeitnot
• Tournament director (TD) ChessCreator (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On this issue, have just changed heading 'Sudden Death' to 'Sudden death' as most headings have second word starting in small letter and also link from Pawnless chess endgames here was already with 'Sudden death' but not working. ChessCreator (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Separate sections helps linking, but we lose that if the section titles are too hard to link to. Unfortunately I don't think HTML anchor tags work in section titles, or we might be able to create several aliases for some of the titles. Quale (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to HTML anchor tags, like an example of one one being used on wikipedia?. I know from experience you can have < font > tags in section titles, so an anchor tag might be possible. Unfortunately I don't at present understand how to create an anchor tag is or how it works. ChessCreator (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I lied/got it wrong. The wikipedia article discussing anchor tags is HTML elements#Links and anchors. One way to get anchors into section titles is Template:Anchor. Once I searched for it I remembered that I had seen that template before, but I've never used it. Quale (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to simplify one of the headings, but I see that you kind folks had to clean up for me since it broke some links. Sorry, I should have checked that myself. Unfortunately it's very hard to do for links from other pages since "What links here" doesn't indicate which section is linked to. Quale (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any easy way to check. The link doesn't turn red because the main article is still there.I only had to update one, and I did it from memory. Bubba73 (talk), 04:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If there was a "what links to this section", that could be checked before making a change, but AFAIK there isn't such a thing. Bubba73 (talk), 05:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Connected rooks

The description of connected rooks says that black usually connects rooks on the 8th rank. That doesn't seem quite right to me, since both players usually connect rooks on their own first rank. Should we fix up the description? Quale (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Re: recent update: Do rooks ever get connected on a file? In my experience that is always called doubling rooks, never connecting them. If we have a reference that says rooks can be connected on a file then of course it should stay. Doubled rooks is a little different, as this can be used for either the rank or file case. As far as I know, the term "doubled rooks" is always used for files, but generally only applied in the rank case when they are doubled in enemy territory, generally the 7th or 8th rank. Quale (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Hadn't thought about it before. Maybe either can occur. Connected or Doubled on rank or file. Connected on same file or rank. The term Doubled rooks is used when there is also something for them to attack. I'm not sure so could be wrong.

	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

Connected rooks. (Doubled also?)

	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

Doubled rooks. Also connected.

ChessCreator (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I made that change. I considered them to be connectedm whether on a file or a rank. But I could be wrong - does anyone have a reference? Bubba73 (talk), 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Larry Evans, New Ideas in Chess, on page 112, he says to connect rooks on the first rank (and it usually signals the end of the opening). But on page 95, he shows an endgame (two rooks versus queen, with some pawns), and says to connect the rooks on what happens to be the second rank. But you are probably right about doubled rooks. Bubba73 (talk), 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked the Oxford Companion, Golombek, and Sunnock - none have an entry for connected rooks. Oxford is the only one with an entry for "doubled rooks", and it says file or rank. So I haven't found much in the way of references. Bubba73 (talk), 01:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The index of Seirawan's Winning Chess Strategies says that "Rooks, connected" is on page 74. On that page, he gives an example of putting them both on a file, but uses the word "double" instead of "connecting". Bubba73 (talk), 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The only reference I found so far that defines connected rooks is Edward R. Brace, An illustrated dictionary of chess (1977), which says that connected rooks are on a common rank with no pawns or pieces between them. This agrees with what I thought was the usage, but although Brace is useful, I don't consider this reference in general as authoritative as Hooper & Whyld or Golombek. It's easier to find definitions of doubled rooks, and they say common rank or file with no intervening pieces. It is not necessary that the rank or file be open, which I think is a problem since our List of chess terms#Doubled rooks says that it must be open. I should look to see if I have any Edward Lasker that would be helpful. (Fred Reinfeld could also be good, but I gave away most of the Reinfeld books I had some years ago.) Maybe we can ask User:Krakatoa to weigh in on these issues. Quale (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is easier to find "doubled rooks", and they all say rank or file, I think. Unfortunately, most chess books don't have an index, except for perhaps player names or openings, which makes searching for this sort of thing hard. One of my first books was Evans' New Ideas in Chess, which seems to imply that any time one protects the other they are connected, and I've been going by that for over40 years. Bubba73 (talk), 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

From the web:

• [2] Double(d) Rooks means that both Rooks are in contact, i.e. able to protect each other.
• [3] Connected rooks - When the two rooks are on the same rank or file, with no pieces or pawns between them. Rooks are very strong when they are connected, as they support each other.
• [4] Connected rooks -When the two rooks are on the same rank or file, with no pieces or pawns between them. Rooks are very strong when they are connected, as they support each other.
• [5]Connected rooks - Two rooks of the same color on the same rank with no pawns or pieces between them. Connected rooks are usually desirable. White most often connects rooks on the first rank and Black on the eighth. cf. Doubled rooks.
• [6] doubled rooks - A battery of two rooks.
• [7] doubled rooks - Two rooks positioned on the same file.
• [8] Doubled Rooks - Two Rooks forming a battery on a rank or file.

Not that helpful, seems much confusion over the terms ChessCreator (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of those are just copies of this very page from wikipedia, so any of our mistakes would be repeated. It can be hard to unravel this, so it's in our best interest to fix any problems as quickly as possible. Quale (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The terms may be interchangable. But my understanding (and it may be wrong) is that connected rooks are on a rank or file, and you speak of doubling rooks on a file. Bubba73 (talk), 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Doubled rooks is not just used on a file. Commonly rooks are doubled to attack pawns on the 7th rank. ChessCreator (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford says that doubling is on a rank or file. I can't see any interpretation of rooks on the same file with no pieces in between where they would not be considered to be connected, so the two terms must be interchangable. Bubba73 (talk), 16:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Could the wording from 'Oxford' mean that doubling can occur on any rank or file. But not that every occurance of two rooks connected on a file or rank are termed doubled? ChessCreator (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've puzzled by it all. Position from Opera game added. Personally I'd be surprised to read in any chess book or hear chess player saying of doubled rooks here. ChessCreator (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

	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

Position from Opera game after 12 O-O-O

White's rooks are connected, but are they doubled?

(unindent) Well, perhaps they are connected any time they are protecting each other, but doubling is a more active process. By that I mean, in this position the rooks are connected, but just by the fact that White has castled and there are no pieces in between; whereas doubling is actively putting both rooks on the same file or some other rank. And doubled rooks are also connected. Or perhaps this is much ado about nothing. Bubba73 (talk), 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. All doubled rooks are connected, but in addition they have something more going on. Perhaps it's that they are active as you say, or maybe it's because they attacking something. ChessCreator (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ChessCreator that "connected rooks" to me seems to be characteristic of the opening and completing development, and emphasizes the strong defensive properties of mutual support and protection of the back rank. "Doubled rooks" is characteristic of the middle game, and suggests the attacking power afforded by the arrangement. Still, thinking about it some more, I think I was wrong with my concern. I think connected rooks is worded fine as is. I don't think it would be wise to try to include any of these nuances in the definitions because they are based solely on my inference from what I've read, not on any actual definitions I've seen in print. When I rely on inferences rather than explicit definition, I can make mistakes, like on #Battery. And as I think about it some more, I may have seen "connecting the rooks" used to describe connecting them on a file as a defensive maneuver in the late middle game or endgame. I suggest we leave that definition alone, as I'm convinced that it's fine and that my concern was wrong. Quale (talk)

redirects to this page

There are some redirects to terms in this article: Minor piece, kingside, queenside, rank (chess), file (chess), rook pawn, knight pawn, bishop pawn, queen pawn, king pawn, and central pawn. If it is acceptable to use these redirects, they can be used in place of the clumbsy and error-prone "list of chess terms#whatever". Bubba73 (talk), 01:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Battery

I thought the definition of battery was correct, but research indicates that it isn't. It is a problem term that refers to a setup of pieces along a line (file, rank, or diagonal) that has the potential for a discovered check against the enemy king. Other references to battery (including the one Alekhine's gun) are wrong too. Since I got this wrong before, someone else might want to fix the definition and remove the other incorrect references to battery in the other definitions. If not, I'll give it a try later myself. Quale (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to fix up the definition of battery, although maybe the wording isn't as clear as it could be. Quale (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you know also of this. ChessCreator (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, thanks for pointing that out. Hooper & Whyld say that battery is problem terminology, so it's a reasonable question whether it belongs here since we say at the top of this list that there is a separate list of problem terminology. It may be that battery is used enough in regular chess to belong here as well, or maybe it isn't. I'm not sure. Quale (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a term for the previously incorrect definiton of battery? Bubba73 (talk), 03:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Names of terms

I've been changing links to terms I've entered from just the letter to the actual term. A problem is that if the term doesn't match, it doesn't show up as a red link if the article title is OK, in which case it simply links to the article. Some term names are too long, for instance "Time pressure, time trouble or zeitnot". "List of chess terms#Time pressure, time trouble or zeitnot" is a mouthful to type! Bubba73 (talk), 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article importance

I think this article should probably be Top importance instead of High. It would be a very good starting point for people to read about chess. Bubba73 (talk), 23:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You could be right, I'm not sure the rational of the importance on this document. All the pieces seems to be top, while less common terms have less importance. ChessCreator (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A glossary of chess terms would be a must have for any encyclopedia, but at the moment it is not a glossary. When the article is a glossary then 'Top' would be sensible. A more encyclopedic lead would make it feel like a glossary as would perhaps a rename to remove the 'List of' tune. ChessCreator (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I like removing "list of", but why isn't this article a glossary? Bubba73 (talk), 03:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Link on the page are relatively easy to find(edit whole page and find) however, it's the links from other pages that is tough. The wikipedia search can't help either. I think you have made most of the external page changes, so maybe you can remember? One of the problems of splitting the page up is that all external links would have to be gone through again. Glad that isn't a requirement anymore. ChessCreator (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I went through "what links here" and picked out all of the articles where I've done significant work and converted them. I left the rest. There are probably a few more places where I've linked to Rank or Minor piece that I didn't track down. Bubba73 (talk), 05:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as other links being redone, one possibility is always using redirect pages such as Rank (chess), Minor piece, and Queenside. Then if the article is split or a term is renamed, it only has to be changed on the redirect page. Also, this eliminates the error of not spelling the term exactly the same in the link. Bubba73 (talk), 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's tough, because an editor not familiar with what you are trying to accomplish may snap or bypass the link to the redirect, not realizing that this is crossing you up. Normally links to redirect pages are discouraged and editors are encouraged to bypass them. I've seen a bot insert comments near sections indicating which other pages link there. (This requires a bot because it's far too tedious to do by hand.) These are supposed to allow editors to fix up those other pages if they rename the section. It's still tedious all around. The only good part is that a failed section link still gets you to the right page, and usually in a glossary it's easy to find the definition the link intended. Quale (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We could inform the project about it, and hope it works. But the bulk of the links to this page that I've entered are to Rank, File, Queenside, Kingside, and Minor piece. Bubba73 (talk), 17:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bit twiddler

Why does Bit twiddler link here? I don't see how wood pusher makes sense in relation to hacker. ChessCreator (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I fully agree with you, but I couldn't find the link you are referring to. Quale (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The word wood pusher on this page. ChessCreator (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now. I don't know. I guess you'd have to ask on Talk:Bit twiddler. You might be able to find the person who added it by looking at that page's history. Quale (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It was added by an IP edit with very few edits. I doubt anyone will even read the talk page. Anyway, I think I'll comment there and leave the link in place. ChessCreator (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Size of document/Splitting and naming

This document is current 77Kb big. Voorlandt list of words to add is more then another 100 definitions. By the time that's done, it's going to be most likelly over 100Kb and a big document. My suggestion is to have three articles total.

• Chess Terms - All the basic terminology for a beginner or someone new to chess.
• More Chess Terms - Would be a more advanced list not part of the other two articles.
• Chess problem terminology - Terminology used in Chess problem, mine you we already some duplication battery, Flight square, Cook etc.

There are alternatives to the above, it could be split alphabetically for example, A-G H-P Q-Z etc, it could be split some other way, or it could be left to grow beyond 100kb. Brought this up now because don't want to change the links, then change the document name, change link and then split the document and then change the link yet again! ChessCreator (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The page seems to load slower since it was broken into subsections for each term, but that may be just me. I like the approach of subsections for each term. Over the last few days I've changed dozens of links to this page to subsections, for the pages I could remember editing. I am not in favor of breaking it down alphabetically, but the other way seems OK. I'd call it "advanced chess terms" (or something like that) instead of "More chess terms", though. Bubba73 (talk), 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be contrarian and say that I think the glossary is better as a single page. I don't think 77K is all that large by modern standards. (The old WP:SIZE concerns were over browser limitations that affected editing, but since ChessCreator's improvements make it possible to edit by section rather than the entire article I don't see that even that should make any difference now.) If the page loads too slowly then we should probably eliminate some of the images and diagrams first, although I think that would be a shame. If the page does need to be split I'll go contrarian again and say that I think the A-M, N-Z type of split is much better than any basic vs. advanced scheme because when split alphabetically I can predict which page a term will be found on. How can I guess where to find something if it were broken down into basic, advanced, etc.? Quale (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Quale, 77K is not that much. They are featured articles far larger (125K for instance [Campaign history of the Roman military]). Also, you might have noticed I am fond of lists, but the list above is not a list of terms I think we should have, it simply is a list of chess terms present in other glossaries but not in ours. The list used to be at most twice as long, and it helped us greatly in finding terms we didn't have, but those that remain now, at least most of them, are trivial or hardly ever used. Voorlandt (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So the idea is NOT to add the above 100 or so 'Missing terms' then, in which case I misunderstood and without many extra terms the document is unlikely to grow to 100Kb, or be an issue. So it may as well stay in it's existing makeup. Although a rename would be nice. ChessCreator (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, any term in the above list that you (or another editor) thinks would be good to cover in the glossary should be added, but some (like "frontal assault" in my opinion) are probably not needed. Which name do you prefer for this page? Maybe it should start with "Glossary" ? Quale (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Glossary sounds good. 'Chess Glossary', 'Glossary of Chess Terms', or 'Chess Terms' all seem fine to me. All an improvement on 'List of chess terms'.

Of the 'Missing terms' on Voorlandt's list, most of them seem either really rare or self explanatory. Terms like 'advantage' and 'winning chances' seems like English, not chess as such. However terms I think should be added are, Outpost, GMA, Tiebreak and possibly Illegal move. Analysis also I've added already, but I did a rush job, as I found it was linked despite being a non existant term, hence the reason to quickly add it. ChessCreator (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the terms you picked are a good selection of things we should add to the article. Your titles also look good, but they would have to follow wikipedia's (completely arbitrary) guidelines on page naming conventions, so the capitalization would have to be adjusted ("Chess glossary", "Glossary of chess terms", "Chess terms"). Quale (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. Another cultural difference. ChessCreator (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

link in subsection title

What happens if a subsection title has a link in it? Will a link to List of chess terms#Whatever with a link work? Bubba73 (talk), 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• It will link fine–a link in the target section title doesn't affect linking to that section. A question though is whether we should link in section titles at all. The WP:MOS discourages this (somewhere, I think), not for technical reasons, but just because (some people include me think) it looks bad. The alternative would be to do the Template:main thing like in List of chess terms#Adjust or j'adoube. I didn't think about this before, but I think it might be better to not link in the section titles. It would make the page a little longer, because the Main article: ... bits take a couple extra lines. What do you think? Quale (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Can you give an example? ChessCreator (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better to not link the term, but use "{{main|artice}}" instead, and I've been doing that for the last day or two on a few entries here. What I'm talking about is shown by "Adjournment" (which is linked) and "Adjust", which is not linked to the main article, but uses "{{Main}}". Bubba73 (talk), 03:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you want to know if section heading that links out, can itself be linked to? Yes, it can. As for example Adjournment is already linked from Sealed move.

Is it a good idea to have section headings as a link out to another page? Possibly not as Quale says. For me I don't like the inconsistent Black and Blue headings, although it's minor detail really. ChessCreator (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We're vain, and we want pages in the chess project to look good. If you and Bubba73 and I agree that avoiding links in section titles and instead using {{main|...}} as Bubba73 suggested is better, then unless someone objects in a day or two we could go ahead and make the change for all entries. Quale (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking within article

As if we didn't have enough to do, I'm wondering about linking to other terms within the article. I think that if a reader is on this page, they would probably like to stay on this page, so I think that links to other terms should link to the short definition on this page rather than to the main article. Of course, the entry should have a link to its main article if there is one.

In the meantime, I'm going to be mostly inactive for a few days. I've spent too much time and need some time off. Bubba73 (talk), 18:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

Should this have a separate page?
I have an idea that it used to before and then maybe got deleted? AfD perhaps? Two things make me think that was possible, first it's was not existing in this article but being referenced from elsewhere as I previously discovered(see above in Size of document/Splitting and naming). Secondly the German wikipedia has a page for it. Analyse_(Schach). Perhaps we should also? ChessCreator (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't know much more to say about it except to give an example, say an annotated game. Part of the German article is covered in Punctuation (chess). Bubba73 (talk), 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

something new

I was looking at Glossary of poker terms and I learned something new. You can put in an anchor, and it works like a section title. For instance ; {{anchor|aggressive}} aggressive, aggression and then you can refer to "agressive" just as you would a section title, and you can have anything after it. I think this would have two advantages:

(1) We can set the anchor and it would remain the same, and the rest can change. For instance {{anchor{{anchor|center}} Centre/Center the anchor is shorter and if the text after it changes, it doesn't mess up the anchor (i.e. references to it from elsewhere).

(2) The page seems to load slowly with all of those small sections. Having a section for each letter and using anchors for the individual terms seems to load faster.

What do you think? Bubba73 (talk), 14:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's quite interesting indeed. I think {{anchor}} could be used irrespective of the layou, as it can be used in the title for example:

==George Walker Bush {{Anchors|George W. Bush|George Bush|Bush|Dubya}}==

Changing the layout again would take a lot of effort but will try adding some anchors. SunCreator (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I just spend quite some time checking this. Every heading is going to require an anchor before the '; ' can be added to the front of the text. It's going to be quite a major task. SunCreator (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Flight square

The wording here on 'Flight square' says 'A square to which a piece can move, which allows it to escape attack.' (bold added), but the Edward Brace in the Illustrated dictionary of chess says "any square that a King can use to escape from check. " etc. Anyone got another source to clear this up? SunCreator (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion says its "a square to which the king could be moved, perhaps for its own safety." Apprantly composers use flight or flight square whereas in actual play it's escape square, which it defines as "a square vacated to allow the king to escape from what might be checkmate." Personally I think the two can be interchangeable. It seems clear though that it only refers to the king. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it say anything about Escape square? Here on wikipedia Escape square redirects to Flight square. SunCreator (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bullet and Lightning

I've always used these two words as synonyms, but on this page the connection isn't mentioned. They have very slight differences in the definition that I've never heard of. 24.226.77.23 (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Passive sacrifice

"Passive sacrifice" was defined here as "a sacrifice that need not be accepted (it can be declined without suffering a disadvantage)." This is completely wrong. A passive sacrifice is when a piece under attack is left there and another piece moved. It has nothing to do with whether the opponent can decline it. For example 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nxf7 Bxf2+ is an active sacrifice (the bishop is moved to a square where it can be taken) but White can decline the sacrifice by playing 6. Kf1. 91.105.50.77 (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Skewer and X-ray

Currently on the article: under "skewer" we have "also called X-ray", and under "X-ray", "see Skewer". Not only is this wrong -- the two are different tactics -- it's moronic, as both tactics have their own separate pages where whoever wrote this could have seen that they are different. I'm taking out the cross-references completely. I don't think there should even be, in the "skewer" section, "similar to an X-ray" or anything of the kind, as then you'd also have to put "similar to a pin" and dozens of other cross-references elsewhere to be consistent. 91.105.50.77 (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically you're right. Even better would be "not to be confused with ... because ..." - I admit I had to look up the "main" article on X-ray to be sure. But your "it's moronic" wasn't too clever - I dont' think there are any morons in Wikiproject Chess. -- Philcha (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

name of article

I saw the move of this article to "Glossary of chess" and back. I don't like the current title very much. I think it would be better to drop the "list of", and call it "chess terms", "chess terminology", or someting involving "glossary". Bubba73 (talk), 04:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is more than a list of terms because it includes definitions. Bubba73 (talk), 18:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I had renamed it Glossary of chess but my edit was reverted. It is a glossary and the article name should reflect this fact. The name I chose also fits in with the naming of other glossaries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but we need to get a consensus before making the change. Bubba73 (talk), 01:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted that move because despite WP:BOLD, it is not a good idea to suddenly rename a well established article that has dozens of incoming links. It would be more appropriate to follow the procedure at WP:Requested moves, or at the very least discuss the proposed move on the talk page first. I don't care too much about the name. It's true that the page includes definitions, but I don't find that a compelling argument that "List of ..." is an inappropriate name. Annotated lists are encouraged in wikipedia, and many of them are called "List of ...". (For examples related to chess see List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess and List of chess periodicals.) Any name that gets consensus is fine with me. Looking at Category:Glossaries it seems that Glossary of chess terms deserves consideration along with Glossary of chess. If you want the rest of the chess wikiproject to express their opinions, you should advertise this discussion at WP:CHESS#... to rename. Quale (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Glossary of chess terms is fine with me. For instance, The Mammoth Book of Chess by Graham Burgess has a long chapter with that exact title. I see a difference between this article and, say, List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess. That article is a list. This article is more than that, it is by definition a glossary. Bubba73 (talk), 06:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of incoming links and how established an article is are not valid reasons to retain a page name. Page names should reflect content since that is the first clue that readers get about the article. It is patently obvious that the article is a glossary rather than a list. Hence the reason for the page move - which I would argue was not a bold move. As to the page name the word "terms" in a page name of Glossary of chess terms is redundant which is why I favoured Glossary of chess. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Renaming a page is not supposed to create double redirects. But that is easy to fix - look at "what links here" and change all redirect pages to point to the new name. Bubba73 (talk), 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. I believe there may be a bot that sometimes fixes redirects that are created by a page move. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -

I have AWB, I can probably do it with that. Bubba73 (talk), 20:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Distraction

Under "distraction" it just said "similar to decoy" followed by, in effect, a chess diagram described in words. I expanded the definition -- it is similar to decoy but I feel it helpful to explain the difference -- and replaced the diagram with an actual one. I leave it to someone else to decide whether having a diagram illustrating this tactic is a good idea. 91.107.190.124 (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think showing a diagram of a position is a lot better than describing it in words. Bubba73 (talk), 17:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Is this a real tactic? It seems like deflection to me. Do we have a WP:RS for this name? I've never heard it used. 165.189.101.177 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing terms

I went over a few other chess glossaries (the first 8 of: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [ [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]) and compared them to this wikipedia article. The following terms are not present:

ACP, Action, Active Chess, Accept, advantage, Alpha-Beta pruning, Analysis, Announced Mate, Bare King, Berserker, Broad pawn centre, Buried piece, Bust, Centre break, Centre fork trick, Chessmen, Clearance, Consolidate, Control, Coordinates, Decisive, Destructive sacrifice, Diagram, Dislodging manoeuvre, Distance, distance to conversion, distance to mate, drawing chances, drawn position, Dynamic, Dynamic play, Echos, Equality, Expansion, fairychess, Fixed centre, Fixed pawn structure, Flank attack, Fluid pawn structure, Force, Forward Pawn, Frontal assault, General principles, Ghosts, Grab, GMA, Hack, Hog, Hold, horse, howler, Hutch, Illegal move, Imbalance, Impossible move, Innovation, Intuition, Legal move, liquidation, lose, losing chances, lost position, Locked centre, Manoeuver, Master, Mating Net, Minority, Novice, Notation, Occupation, Orientation, Outflanking, Pairings, Pawn Center, Pawn contact, Pawn duo, Pawn Grabbing, Pawn Skeleton, Petite combination, Pig, Point count, position, Premature, Problem Child, Redeploy, Rabbit, rating, Recapture, Restrain, Risk, Running Rapidly, Scope, Screened piece, Sector, Shot, Space count, Square, strategy, study, Speculative, Style, Symmetry, Super grandmaster, Support point, Tactical play, Tension, Territory, Titles, Theory, Transition, Undoubling, Unsound, Unclear, Value, weakness, Wild, winning chances, whisper. Voorlandt 08:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a rather fundamental term in chess, I have added Strategy to the Glossary of chess, with a link to the main article Chess strategy. I took the definition from the Chess strategy article and added "as opposed to a tactic, which is ...". If somebody wants to revise this definition of Strategy, go ahead and edit it. H Padleckas (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

forced move

Is another definition of "forced move" "the only legal move"? Bubba73 (talk), 17:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me there can be either of two closely related definitions to Forced move. One could be the only legal (or allowed) move. The other could be the only move to avoid an impending disaster for that player, such as avoiding checkmate or loss of the queen. H Padleckas (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge Premoving

Suggested that Premoving is merged here. SunCreator (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The premoving page should probably just be deleted instead. The page is completely unreferenced, the term is not important (certainly not in chess as a whole), and does not appear in any of the references for this article. Quale (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• I think the article should be deleted. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 01:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

chess dictionary?

Is there a specialized dictionary for these chess terms? Murakumo-Elite (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Several. See references. SunCreator (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

En prise

Sorry,I don't know how to start a separate entry.

• "En Prise" Def: "From the French,often italicized"

That's fine but what does it mean in french? ty BrianAlex (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Google translates it as "Taken By". Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 05:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Square of Queening

I don't think "Square of Queening" (entry added 13 Jan 2010) is actually a chess term. Our article calls it "rule of the square" which is the term I'm familiar with. "Square of Queening" would be a poor name in any case as it strongly suggests the square upon which a pawn will promote, which is not what it supposedly refers to. I'm not sure this is a sufficiently important glossary item to be included even under the better name "rule of the square", but it certainly doesn't belong where it is now. Quale (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

queening/underpromotion

Is "Queening" ever used for underpromotion (as the entry for Queening says)? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've heard it used that way. I guess we have to look at our sources to see what they say. We have no obligation to include non-standard or marginal usages here if they lack a good source. Quale (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick check of some elementary books and they weren't clear. It seems to me that "queening" implies that it is not an underpromotion. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 20:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirects to this page

Here is a list of redirects to this page. These are very handy - a lot easier to type than the full path, e.g. "kingside" instead of "glossary of chess#Kingside" (And the "K" has to be caps in the second one to link to the section). Also, they are more robust. If the section title changes, that breaks a lot of links. If these are used instead, only the redirect has to be updated.

• World Chess Champion
• File (chess)
• Skittles (chess)
• Hole (chess)
• Chess terms
• Rank (chess)
• Rook pawn
• Knight pawn
• Bishop pawn
• King pawn
• Queen pawn
• Central pawn
• En prise
• Patzer
• Tabia
• Tabiya
• Bishop pair
• Chess jargon
• Chess terminology
• Positional chess
• Kibitzing
• Queenside
• Kingside
• Minor piece
• Chess term
• Bad bishop
• Theoretical novelty
• Mobility (chess)
• Coffeehouse chess
• Coffee house chess
• Blockade (chess)
• Major piece
• Book draw
• Grandmaster draw
• Material (chess)
• Resign (chess)
• Promote (chess)
• List of chess terms
• Capture (chess)
• Chess glossary
• Kingside (chess)
• Queenside (chess)
• Hanging pawns
• Drawish
• Rook lift
• Center (chess)
• Develop (chess)
• Pawn majority
• Development (chess)
• Forced move
• Scoresheet (chess)
• Score sheet (chess)
• Novelty (chess)
• Waiting move
• Forced move (chess)
• Counterplay
• Solid (chess)
• Tournament Director (chess)
• Over-the-board
• Pawn chain
• Bind (chess)
• Illegal move (chess)
• Illegal position (chess)
• Performance rating (chess)

Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

X-ray

I'm disappointed that after I added the correct definition of X-ray (some years back) someone has again replaced it with "sometimes used in place of skewer". Okay, if the term is sometimes used in place of skewer then this can be said (citation, though?) but there should still be something about the true X-ray, which has no other name and thus is not currently mentioned at all. An X-ray is where a piece defends a piece or square "through" another, e.g. White has rooks on a8, h8, Black has a rook on e8, even though neither White rook is defended Black cannot win a rook by capturing one. 213.249.135.36 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Used in place of skewer" is definitely far from complete, and misses the main point. I remember a few months ago we were having trouble getting a good definition of x-ray, but I thought that we did. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing "Parry"

The entry "Interpose" has an internal reference to "Parry", but this entry does not exist. --Sir48 (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right. But I don't know of any special chess meaning of "parry", so I don't see a need to add Parry. So the reference to it can be taken out of Interpose, unless someone comes up with a special meaning in chess. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take out the reference to the Parry section, which doesn't exist. I don't know that "parry" has any special meaning in chess. For instance, it is not in the Oxford Companion. It can be added if needed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What is a position?

This probably sounds like a stupid question, but I think there are two very different yet sensible meanings:

1. where a single piece is e.g. a1
2. where all the pieces are

I think it would be worth noting whether just one or both of these are correct.--Danielx (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In chess, a "position" is #2, unless it is specifically stated "... the position of the rook ...". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it also include such things as whether each side has moved king or rook (giving up right to castle, at least with that rook), or whether an en passant capture is possible? I think those things are part of the "position" in the sense of the fifty-move rule threefold repetition rule, at least. --Trovatore (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes in a sense, for instance, two positions are not considered the same as far as threefold repetition unless the options of en passant and castling are the same. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Family fork, family check

I thought that a "family fork" was a fork of the king and queen. If that is correct, the article needs to be changed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hooper & Whyld agree with you, saying it's a knight fork giving check and attacking the queen and possibly other men. Horton says Bogoljubov used the term "family check" for a knight fork attacking the king and a group of other pieces. I'll adjust the definition to match Hooper & Whyld. Quale (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

en prise

The translation of en prise was recently changed from "in danger" to "in doubt". A French professor tells me that the best translation is "in the grasp". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Rank

The entry on Rank has been changed. In algebraic notation, ranks start at 1 on White's side, but otherwise it almost always refer to the rank from the player's side. You hear "rooks on the seventh rank" but never on the second rank, "when a pawn reaches the eighth rank", "the third rank defense", "if the pawn is beyond the fourth rank", etc. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

From the Oxford Companion to Chess, "A rank is customarily defined by its relationship to the player." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "rooks on the 7th" mean rank 7 for White, rank 2 for Black. Ditto "reaching the eighth rank", and the other examples. I see now what the def was trying to say. (But it was confusing.) I tried to keep "rank 1" and "White's first row; Black's eighth row" separate. (If "rank 1" is called "Black's eighth rank" in the def, ... that's tricky and can be confusing.) I'll revert my re-def, then give it another shot in light of above. (Sound ok?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, give it another try, but "rooks on the seventh rank" mean on the seventh rank - from that player's perspective. When a pawn reaches the eighth rank it is promoted. A rank is not the same thing as the algebraic notion of the board. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. (I know that stuff; the way was worded didn't hit me what was attempted to be gotten at.) There's a diagram next to the def, w/ ranks denoted as in notation, so presumably the def wants to describe both. (Tricky. I'll give a try.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

When taking one player's perspective, it's from his side of the board, but if it's from both players' perspective it's from White's side. Chess Life had a line "the sudden buildup of Black pieces on the fifth rank" when the rank was the fifth rank from White's point of view.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

How's this?:

(Old)
A row of the chessboard. Specific ranks are referred to by number, first rank, second rank, …, eighth rank. Unlike the case with files, rank names are always given from the point of view of each individual player, with the first rank being the home row of the king and other pieces. White's first rank is Black's eighth rank (row 1) and White's eighth is Black's first (row 8), White's second rank is Black's seventh rank (row 2) and White's seventh is Black's second (row 7), and so on.

(New)
A row of the chessboard. In algebraic notation, ranks are numbered 1–8 starting from White's side of the board. But players customarily refer to ranks from their own perspectives (unlike files, which players name the same). For example: White's king and other pieces start on his first (or "back") rank, whereas Black calls the same rank his eighth rank; White's pawns start on his second rank, which Black calls the seventh rank; White's seventh rank is Black's second, and so on. If neither the White or Black perspective is given, White's view is assumed. The older descriptive notation formalized this relative reference to ranks.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be original research, but I think that'll be nice (and welcome back Ihardlythinkso!).--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Bubba, does the re-do look okay to you too? (Also, I never know if links in glossary defs should be to other terms in the glossary, or to mainspace articles, when there is a choice. [E.g. "descriptive notation" has both glossary entry and mainspace article. The glossary entry links to the main article. Ditto "algebraic notation" and "chessboard".]) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, except for "always given" - I'd eliminate "always" since there may be exceptions, and algebraic notation is an exception. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Bubba, "always given" is text in the "old" def, not the "new" (re-done for consider) def. Both old & new are shown above. Good? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I might would take out the phrase "which players name the same" from "(unlike files, which players name the same)." and just say "unlike files", but I'm not sure. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how's this?:

(New)

A row of the chessboard. In algebraic notation, ranks are numbered 1–8 starting from White's side of the board. However, players customarily refer to ranks (but not files) from their own perspectives. For example: White's king and other pieces start on his first (or "back") rank, whereas Black calls the same rank his eighth rank; White's pawns start on his second rank, which Black calls the seventh rank; White's seventh rank is Black's second, and so on. If neither the White or Black perspective is given, White's view is assumed. The older descriptive notation formalized this relative reference to ranks.

I think that is fine, although a little long for the glossary. Perhaps shorten by omitting the second example about the rank of the pawns. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Like this?:

(New)

A row of the chessboard. In algebraic notation, ranks are numbered 1–8 starting from White's side of the board. However, players customarily refer to ranks (but not files) from their own perspectives. For example: White's king and other pieces start on his first (or "back") rank, whereas Black calls the same rank his eighth rank; White's seventh rank is Black's second; and so on. If neither the White or Black perspective is given, White's view is assumed. The older descriptive notation formalized this relative reference to ranks.

 Done

Okay, I updated the glossary w/ the collaborated result. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Glossary templates

I reformatted this page to use {{term}} and {{defn}} templates. Their main benefits are structured markup (the content is semantically laden now, and a computer will be able to parse them as glossary entries), and they add anchor links (so every entry can be linked, without added code. Just a # sign, eg Glossary of chess#Book move). The drawbacks are increased page size, and increased editmode complexity. Hopefully you agree that the pros outweigh the cons!

The next level beyond this, for a large and fullfeatured page such as this, would be to create your own template similar to {{cuegloss}} (as used in Glossary of cue sports terms) to clarify when a bluelink is a within-the-page link, vs a link to another article. If you want that, it's up to you! (I haven't used them yet, but might be able to advise/assist).

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

More terms to consider

More terms to consider: consolidation and loose (as in loose piece or loose position). I don't have good non-copyvio definitions at hand tonight. Quale (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a whack ...

Consolidation: Improvement in the strength of a player's position by repositioning one or more pieces to better squares. This is usually done after an attack or combination which achieved a material advantage, leaving the player's pieces in suboptimal positions or uncoordinated with one another.

Loose piece or Loose position: A piece or position that is vulnerable to opponent attacks, either because the piece is undefended and cannot be quickly withdrawn or supported, or the player's position is overextended or the pieces are uncoordinated.

(Better than nothing?! Or maybe others' critiques can help evolve ...) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe loose is antonym of solid !? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Those look pretty good. We might also want fixed center and fluid center. Quale (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

How's this?: Consolidation, Loose piece/position Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed center: A pawn configuration in the center of the board that is "fixed" or "rigged" in some manner, as to be unfair, or dangerous, to one or both players. See fixed election; rigged boobytrap. Alternatively, a fixed center can mean a player's central pawn configuration has been rendered impotent. See fixed housecat.

Fluid center: Something no one ever sees regarding the game of chess, or is physically unable to be seen, even though presumed by most players to exist. Examples are the molten center of the earth, the fluid center of one's own eyeball, and Bobby Fischer thrashing the Devil on a daily basis.

Oops! - wrong room. (Will try again tomorrow ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm ... the Hooper/Whyld (1987) Fixed centre def is limiting it to e4/e5 and d4/d5 pawns, with pawns on one or both adjacent files exchanged. (That's pretty specific, do you agree with their limitation?) And I think the simplest & best def for Fluid center will be: "Not fixed. (See fixed center.) Please tell me what you think. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It was actually Hooper & Whyld that made me think that maybe fixed center and fluid center should be in the glossary. I saw their definition and it does seem a bit more specific than I would expect. I can look at some other books to see if I can come up with anything, but I won't get it done anytime soon even though it isn't a huge task. Quale (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no one has "braved" a definition of: theory. (I can understand why! But, it's a term bound to be run across by non-chessplayers, and cause confusion: "Huh?") Anyway, ... going thru the glossary has made me a little "bonkers" by now. (Hopefully someone will understand!) ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

ENGVAR re the glossary

Quale, here's one for you ... Going thru the glossary (for first time anyone doing so, I think), has bound to improve some basic stuff (and, I think that's happening). Also bound to uncover some "issues" (that, maybe, can be dealt with subsequently, for purpose of fashioning an "even better" glossary, ha!). Ok, here's one ...

I see there is a pretty much heavy preference for British English. Why would this be justfied (in a glossary)? (Why would it take precedence over American English? Or would it? Or why not? Or why? Or what?) Okay, here is what I observe:

• Term Expanded centre is linkable only by British English.
• Term Defence ... ditto.
• Term Pawn centre ... ditto.
• Term Equalise/Equalize is linkable only by specifying both, British first.
• Term Centre/Center ... ditto.
• Term Centralization is linkable only by American English.

Ok, I think that is pretty much comprehensive. (No big deal of course, but ... as a next step to making a workable glossary, shouldn't there be some reconciliation about terms and British vs. American vs. both specification? [I thought about the idea of whatever author of the term created it gets their choice, but, ... that hardly seems the kind of decision that should be made here, for a glossary of chess accessible by everyone. [Articles can have their country ties, but ... chess terms?!? None of the ones listed do, so no!] But how then do we straighten this out? -- what s/ we do?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Zwischenzug and waiting move

These are closely related - do they need to link to each other? According to sources, Zwischenzug means "in-between move", but the way I've seem them used is usually a little different. A lot of times a Zwischenzug is getting in a check or an attack on a major piece before recapturing. A waiting move is more typically done to get the opponent in zugzwang or because you don't have anything better to do. Is that about right? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say they're different and shouldn't be linked up. (A zwischenzug limits or forces the opponent response; a waiting move doesn't have that characteristic.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

ICU should be removed

The ICU entry is a puzzler. Ireland has never been significant in world chess and no one would ever use the glossary to look up the acronym of the Irish Chess Union. I think it should be removed. Quale (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.  Done On another topic, I posted some observations re British vs. American English in the glossary on Bubba's Talk here, your thoughts appreciated too. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

perpetual check

A draw by perpetual check hasn't been in the rules (FIDE or USCF) for decades. (Either threefold repetition or the fifty-move rule will eventually come into effect.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Human move ...

The kind of move a human would make, as opposed to the kind of move that only a computer would make.GretDrabba (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"Human move" seems to come from the perspective of computers! (Wouldn't "Computer move -- the kind of move that only a computer would make, as opposed to the kind of move a human would make" be more appropriate?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

During the current match in Spain, [Spain?? I meant to say India!] I've heard commentators using the phrase as though it were a term, as in: taking he pawn would be the human move. I suspect that people will wonder and try to look it up. I think "computer move" is also a useful term. A possible definition could be elaborated: For example, a human might move a rook to an open file based on experience, intuition and strategy, and in the same position a computer might make a pawn move that is based on the machine's comparison of a vast number of tactics, but a move that to a human might seem irrelevant to the position. Both moves may be "good moves" and either move may be better than the other.GretDrabba (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Since "human move" has no meaning or context except when "computer move" is defined and understood, logic dictates the latter s/ get first priority/essentiality (as opposed to view it is "also a useful term"). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course human moves came first, but "human move" as an example of terminology (which is what we're discussing) was forced into being by the advent of computers, and the term "computer moves" started being commonly used first. At least in a limited sense the two terms may be codependent. Each term all by itself may seem to have an obvious meaning, but if you try to define what exactly is the difference between the two, and consider whether it's possible to tell one type of move from the other -- then the two terms become quite interesting, and then the definition may be something that a beginner, for example, would not grasp immediately.GretDrabba (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The two terms aren't just codependent, one is the antonym of the other. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Priyome

Priyome: a Russian term for simple strategic devices that depend on pawn structure. (Soltis, Andrew. 100 Chess Master Trade Secrets: From Sacrifices to Endgames. Batsford. 2014)DocFido (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Bird Bind: a priyome that involves trading a bishop for a knight, so a knight can occupy the center.

Philidor's Ring: A particular priyome that consists of a knight protected by two pawns inside the enemy camp.DocFido (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ring: A priyome that consists of a knight protected by two pawns inside the enemy camp.DocFido (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Battery

I think the definition of “battery” needs to be edited. I think the part about a “discovered check” is off. I believe this is a good definition: “two or more attacking pieces in a straight line, directly threatening a particular target.” At any rate, as it stands the illustration doesn’t match the definition. Barklestork (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong rook pawn

 Fixed The diagram given for "wrong rook pawn" is a poor illustration. White to play can play Be5, keeping the black king out of the corner, and promote his pawn in a very few moves. 91.20.107.207 (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Good catch 91.20.107.207. Do you think it would be better to add "Black to move and can draw with Kb8." to the caption or to show something like this example where it does not matter whose move it is?

	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

A wrong rook pawn at a5 with a wrong-colored bishop. In this position, White cannot force promotion and Black can force stalemate.

--Marc Kupper|talk 20:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead with fixing the article by using the proposed diagram from above and also corrected the pawn location in the caption and ended the caption with "... and Black can force a draw." Black can't "force" a stalemate though that's one of the possible outcomes. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

underpromotion

I believe we need a better example for underpromotion. At present we have the example to the left. I don't see that White is required underpromote as Black can still move their a4 pawn meaning there's no stalemate. Am I missing something? If not, I'd propose using the example on the right.

	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

In this position, White should underpromote their c7 pawn to a rook; promoting to a queen would lead to stalemate.

	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

In this position, White should underpromote their b7 pawn to a rook; promoting to a queen would lead to stalemate.

--Marc Kupper|talk 08:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)