Talk:Rules of chess/Archive 2

Rollback suggestion

Comparing this old version with this current version, it seems to me that a lot of the additions are written in a colloquial, informal style that is not well suited to an encyclopedia. However, I do think that the motivation (clarification) behind at least some of the edits is a sound one. One possible way out of the current situation is that you rollback the article to the the earlier version above, and then scottdude2000 to propose specific language changes, areas that need clarification, etc. and work on each one separately. You need to have a plan in place for when the article is unprotected otherwise this will just go on forever. What do you all think?--rgpk (comment) 20:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

While I wasn't intending a colloquial feel I can see how you got that from some of what I wrote. you're right it has no place in an encyclopedia. I'd be fine with rolling it back to a version that includes the note on pins and check (at the very least the last one with anthony's earliest rewrite even though I think that one is a bit rough around the edges) since it's a rule. If you guys want me to propose the separate language changes section by section I will do so. But I'm not aiming for the weirdly legalistic technical manual we had originally. I think we need to strike a balance between technical manual and colloquial. I think that middle is called being informative. Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. Some of Scottdude2000's are intended to improve the wording. But his addition of the section on forks had nothing to do with the rules. Similarly, the part he added on pins was mostly beside the point and long and rambling. His change of the three ways to get out of check to the really convoluted version was inaccurate. His version of the knight move is inaccurate because it isn't just any 2:1 or 1:2 ratio or any L or 7 shape. So I think it is best to revert to the version before he started editing, change it back to semi-protected, and discuss wording changes on the talk page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

bubba. hit command F (or apple F or control F) and search for the word fork. it does not appear in the entire article. you're rehashing something old and irrelevant to this discussion. it's necessary to cover that a pinned piece can still check. that's unquestionably a rule. and my change to the check section is actually shorter than the original and also lacking all the redundancies that the original had. but the knight thing I can see rolling back (but the L or 7 shape came directly from the earlier version so take that up with whoever put it in there).Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the recent revert

Sorry, I was away for the weekend so couldn't respond earlier. This revert has numerous problems.

1. I agree that the old description of the knight move can and should be improved, but as pointed out by several people this edit is inaccurate so we can't use it. "Another way of putting it is: the knight moves in a 2:1 or 1:2 ratio horizontally then vertically in that respective order."--absolutely wrong. This would allow a move of four squares horizontally followed by two squares vertically, or six and three. It would be too verbose and convoluted even if correct (especially considering the rest of the added material I didn't quote here). I welcome discussion of how we can actually improve the explanation of the knight move. The official rule is just what our first sentence says: "The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal." This is probably the shortest accurate description of the move, but I think it's a little hard for a beginner to understand.
2. The changed language for the pawn move is also incorrect. "No pawn can move any further than the vacancy directly in front of itself."—Nope. On the first move a pawn may advance two squares, which is not the vacancy directly in front of itself. Also language was removed that clarifies that pawns can only move forward. The edit left this quite ambiguous, as any backward or sideways move would seem to be allowed as it would not violate the "any further than the vacancy directly in front" requirement. Other language was removed that points out that pawns are the only pieces that capture differently than they move; this is a helpful note for beginners. I agree that the description of the pawn move should be improved, but this wasn't an improvement. Perhaps we should look to staying closer to the language used in the Laws of Chess.
3. "In official play" added to the castling section is just extra verbosity. These are the laws of chess; they all apply to official play. No source was provided that the rule is different for "unofficial play". It's true that the rule against simultaneously moving the king and rook is often ignored, especially in casual or blitz play, but I'm not sure that's important here.
4. The changes to the check section are a mess too. "The definition of check is that one or more opposing pieces could theoretically capture the king on the next move (although the king is never actually captured)."—Not true. You can see the actual definition of check at http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=124&view=article, section 3.9. There is no mention of "capture" anywhere in the definition of check. Trying to use this explanation causes confusion on several levels. Perhaps the biggest problem is that a piece pinned against the king can give check, even though the rules would not allow it to move and hence capture the opposing king. My edit made this section shorter and accurate, although I'm certain it can be improved. Removal of the brief clarification that capturing the checking piece must leave the king no longer in check is perhaps OK. It's covered in the other requirements so it is isn't required to explicitly point this out, but sometimes a little redundancy can make the rules easier to understand.
5. The edit to the draw section, "The game is immediately drawn due to insufficient material when one of the following endings arises (presuming there are no pawns, rooks, or queens remaining in play):" is wrong yet again. The actual rule can be found in section 5.2b: "The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’." Notice that "insufficient material" is not in the rule, and in fact insufficient material is not a requirement. The example endgames given in the article are insufficient material as there is no way for any position with those pieces to ever allow checkmate. By contrast a dead position draw includes more possibilities because it can occur when there is enough material to checkmate but the position does not make this possible. Typically this happens in closed positions with locked pawn chains.
6. The edit to draw by agreement adds an unnecessary word ("may") that makes the sentence not make sense in context. "The game ends in a draw if any of these conditions occur: ... * Both players may agree to a draw after one of the players makes such an offer." Huh? The sentence was correct before: the game ends in a draw if both players agree. Not the game ends in a draw if both players may agree to a draw.
7. The edit to the 50-move rule is a wording change that isn't especially objectionable but I don't think it improves the article. "fifty moves have been played by each player without any capture or a pawn being movedpawn advancement." I suppose the change might be preferred because it's a little more direct (one word for three), but replacing "being moved" by "advancement" just seems to make it sound a little more complicated to me.

Quale (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I support your changes; thanks for taking the time to explain the issues so clearly. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your revert and all seven points. On #7, pawn advancement seems to say a move and not a capture, but it applies to a capture too. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

knight move

I also don't like the wording of the knight move in the official rules. I prefer to say that it moves two squares horrizontally or vertically (forwards or back) and one square perpendicular to that. Leave out 2:1 ratio, L or 7 shape. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Staunton (1847) has an appropriate quote: "The action of the Knight is peculiar, and not easy to describe." I looked at the FIDE website and some books and found the following descriptions of the knight move:

1. Nearest square not on the same rank and file
2. One square along the same rank or file followed by one square diagonally away from original position
3. Two squares along the same rank or file followed by one square perpendicular
4. From one corner to the diagonally opposite corner of a 2 square by 3 square rectangle
5. L-shaped

The only place I've seen #1 is in the official laws as published by FIDE, probably because it's a bit opaque.

Staunton (1847), Harkness (Official Bluebook, 1956 and other years), and Golombek (basically quoting Harkness) give #2.

Tarrasch (1931, 1935) and Lasker (1947) give #3. We have this now, but substitute "90°" for "perpendicular". I think perpendicular is better.

Burgess and Hooper & Whyld give #4. One advantage of this description is that it is more explicit showing that the knight doesn't pass through any intermediate squares but alights directly on its target square.

The L-shape description is never given as the only definition, but is sometimes provided as additional explanation.

I suppose we should give the official FIDE definition first. Then we can pick some or all of the rest, although I wouldn't include #5 alone without at least one other better description from 2 through 4. It might also help our readers to note that the knight always lands on a square of the opposite color than it currently occupies. Maybe something like,

The L-shaped move of the knight can be described in several equivalent ways, including

• [bulleted list of items #2 through #4].

Quale (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it should say that the knight jumps to that square, however it is described to make it clear that the knight doesn't have to move over the squares (either 2 and 1 perpendicular or 1 orthogonal and 1 diagonal). Some young people briefly put the knight on two intermediate squares when moving it. The L shape can be confusing. At a tournament where I was an assistant director last year (I think), one young player asked me if the knight could move like a lowercase L. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It is supposed to be easy if you think of ${\sqrt {5}}$... Of the enumerated definitions I think #2 is the clearest and easiest to understand, although I myself generally think in terms of #3. The Laws of Chess [1] uses #1, and is very unambiguous, but it requires a bit of thinking to deduce what those moves look like. Of course, the diagram helps a lot here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd personally support the avoidance of mathematical and geometrical concepts like orthogonal, perpendicular, ratio, L-shaped etc. We broadly teach movement in terms of 'rank' and 'file', so if we can describe things in this way then we are reinforcing important principles and not excluding the non-mathematicians. A book I have on general indoor games gives a long-winded(?) description, but it covers all the elements (forwards, backwards, hopping over etc.) and follows the rank and file system. - Knights can advance or retreat and the movement across the squares can be two along the rank and one up (or down) a file, or one along the rank and two up (or down) the file. It should be remembered that knights are the only piece on the board that are allowed to hop over other pieces - and this applies to your own or those of your opponent. - Brittle heaven (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Although rank and file have been introduced earlier in the article, I'd rather avoid those terms when trying to describe the move of the knight to someone who might not know it. I'd rather say horizontal and vertical or left, right, up, and down. I think it should describe it in two ways. I favor #3, but I don't think of anything like that when playing - I just know where it goes. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some readers will understand best one definition, and other readers will understand best another definition, depending on their respective background. So maybe we should put several definitions, explaining their are equivalent, to cover different categories of readers ? SyG (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pawn movement

We are having an argument tin my household regarding pawn movements and referring to this article has not entirely cleared up the matter. This article states that the pawn may move two squares on its first move. My companions insist that his is only true for the first pawn to move. If I am right, please update the article to state that EACH pawn may move two squares on its first move. If I am wrong, please update the article to read that only the FIRST pawn my move two squares on its first move. ErinHowarth (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Each pawn has the option of moving two squares on its first move. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And I don't see what the rationale would be for only the first pawn to move to have that option. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

All pawns may move two squares on their first move. One line might be the Maroczy Bind, 1.e4 e5 2.c4.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Identifying squares

Hello Chess-friends!

I have been improving this article at portuguese wikipedia and I found some minor problems that I'd like to check with you guys. Why you have a section just in the beginning of the article named as "Identifying squares"? 1) If you check at fide handbook it doesn't mention that square should be identified. 2) althought algebric notation is official for FIDE tournaments, it's not necessary to know any notation system to learn basic rules. 3)There are other notation systems, so if you really want to mention I think it's worth to say it's just an example or that algebric was adopted because FIDE did it too.4) Of course it's important mention notation system but "recording moves" section it's okay for that. Regards!OTAVIO1981 (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It probably should be moved down,since you can play without identifying the squares. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wont't fix the article because my english is too simple. I'm just pointing what I think it can be improved. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that either the "identifying the squares" section should be removed or replaced with one about chess notation (or recording moves). Recording the moves is required in competition (except for fast games), so it is sort of a rule. On the other hand, you can play chess without it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe merge "identifying the squares" section with "recording moves" section solves the problem. Capablanca scoresheet it's not helpful and could be replaced by a chessboard with identified squares. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, so I did it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Castling

"The king and the rook must be on the same rank". I think it's quite obvious since it's sated that they shouldn't be moved before.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See note #3. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

sorry, but I didn't understand. Per note #1 king and rook must not being moved before so, they are always in the same rank before castle. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Note #3 explains it. Without that restriction, under the old statement of the rule, a pawn could be promoted on the e-file to a rook and it could castle with the king. That was pointed out about 30 years ago and FIDE added that to the rules. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Now I get it! Thanks! :)OTAVIO1981 (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

See also

According to guideline WP:SEEALSO, in general an item s/ not be in 'See also' if it is already linked in the article body, and as a result the best documented articles on WP many times don't even have a 'See also' section. Can the 'See also' section be shaved down in the article, or is it consensus that the article is exception to that guideline? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The guideline also says to use editorial judgement and common sense. I think the articles that are in the see also section are very helpful - if the reader is looking for particular articles or rules, it will be easier to find them there than read through the article until you find it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

History

In the first paragraph of the history section, I noticed that it states that a pawn could not be promoted after reaching its eighth rank. From what I gathered from the history of chess section, it could at least be promoted to a queen (general).

I also think that the few references to arab and persian versions of the game (shatranj) should be replaced with references to Chaturanga instead as it is the original precursor of modern day chess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.223.67 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked the source and you are right about promotion. I must have misread the source. I'll fix it later. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Error in section "Time control"

The section "Time control" currently contains the following sentence:

A game played under time control will end as a loss for a player who uses up all of their allotted time

which is not correct; compare it to article 6.9 of the chess rules: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=124&view=article

[...] if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

I know, the section "Competition rules/Timing" clarifies this, but it's still confusing to have two parts of the same wikipedia article telling different things. --87.148.200.46 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I made a change - see if it is OK now. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, concerning the chess rules, this is correct.... If you want to be 100% correct, you would use a gender neutral expression instead of "his opponent" :-P --87.148.197.15 (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There are always hard-to-solve problems like that. Earlier in the sentence it talks about "their time", in order to be gender neutral, but "their" is plural and the player is singular. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You say they is always plural? What's this: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they

Definition of they

pronoun

[third person plural]

1.: used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified: the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted

people in general: the rest, as they say, is history

informal people in authority regarded collectively: they cut my water off

2.: [singular] used to refer to a person of unspecified sex: ask a friend if they could help

I think there's no reason not to make the sentence read: A game played under time control will end as a loss for a player who uses up all of their allotted time, unless their opponent cannot possibly checkmate them --87.148.197.15 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Footnote pointers

Footnotes elsewhere seem to be less verbose, typically just a number, with the content in the footnote. In this article the footnote pointers seem excessively long. JDAWiseman (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the author/date Parenthetical referencing? That is a standard method. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

insufficient material

	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

White has been checkmated. The black king can also be on c1 and the black bishopcan be anywhere on the b2 to g7 diagonal.

So “king against king and bishop” is a draw, but “king and bishop against king and bishop” is a draw only “ with both bishops on diagonals of the same color”. To the non-expert reader the need for the condition is far from obvious. JDAWiseman (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is correct, since a checkmate is possible if there is a bishop on the other side on the opposite color, but not if the bishops are on the same color. I'll try to clarify it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So presumably I can be checkmated if my own bishop is somehow (and stupidly) trapping my king. That isn’t obvious to the non-expert (meaning me), and hence worthy of more explanation. JDAWiseman (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see the diagram. I added a little more, but I doubt that the article should be crowded up with a diagram. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?}

I added a link to an article that shows that type of position. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Knocking over the king

"Tipping over the king also indicates resignation, but it is not frequently used"

Tipping over the king is sometimes used as a symbolic accompaniment to resignation. It does not constitute resignation and has no significance in the official rules of chess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.64.89 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A very good point, IMO. (Why not just change the text?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The FIDE rules don't say anything about it but the USCF rules do. USCF Rule 13B says "Saying 'I resign' or tipping over the king are relatively clear ways to resign." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thx for looking that up. Perhaps a distinction in the text is desirable. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC) p.s. I'll never use my expensive wood set in a tournament if is acceptable to knock it over! Let alone a delicate Staunton carved ivory set. This USCF rule seems to stem from olden times. (Yuk.)

Years ago I used to always do that. I quit doing it. I use House of Staunton wood sets. (In fact, the two pictured there are mine.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are the nicest sets! Knocking over a K could also ding an expensive wood board. I've never seen any player knock over a king (except in the movies). (I've seen a player pick the K up in his hand and carefully lay it on the board on its side, however.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC) p.s. I've never felt the urge to knock over a K -- only the urge to throw it across the room. (I wonder how USCF would rule that? Hehe.)

I think I have seen people knock over the king, but I can't recall any particular one. One of the games in the US Women's championship a few years ago ended with one of the players (Krush, I think) knocking pieces across the room. I also have one of the not-too-expensive sets (a few hundred US$) from Jaques of London, and they seem about the same as the HoS sets that cost a few hundred US$. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer insisted on (and got) a Jaques of London set for the 1972 Championship. I remember reading about that Krush incident, but wasn't that removed from the article as unverifiable? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC) In Star Trek episode "Charlie X", Charlie melts the chess pieces using his mental powers at frustration to losing to Mr. Spock. I wonder if that is acceptable as resignation too. Hehe.

Here is video of Krush. I don't think that would count as a resignation since I think her time had expired. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

a few comments

I'm not a chess player. I have found though a few points I think worth mentioning

1. The terms rank and file should be explained before being used. This could be in the section describing the board.

2. Castling rules say:

• The king and rook involved in castling must not have previously moved;
• The king and the rook must be on the same rank

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the first condition ensure that the last is always true?

Sejtam (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

1. It is described in subsection Rules of chess#Recording moves. (Also the terms are wlink'd there to the Glossary of chess.)

2. 99.999% of the time, yes. (There's one little problem situation described if the extra condition is not specified: [2].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Typo. in Reference 17

"17. With a king and bishop versus a king and bishop, a checkmate is not possible of the bishops are on the same colour of squares but checkmate is possible if they are on opposite colours." should read "17. With a king and bishop versus a king and bishop, a checkmate is not possible if the bishops are on the same colour of squares but checkmate is possible if they are on opposite colours.". (i.e., "of the bishops" -> "if the bishops")Chaa006 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Order of first two paragraphs?

I think they're backward. The first paragraph talks about this history of the game, who sets the rules, and variations. The second paragraph actually describes the game. Is there any objection to reversing them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marzolian (talk • contribs) 06:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Staunton vs Williams

Elijah Williams was in fact a very strong player, fully capable of beating Staunton on a good day. I've seen Robert Byrne's column in the NY Times ([3]) but I'm still a bit uncomfortable with using that as a source since chess writers are notoriously sloppy with regard to history and prone to relating anecdotes as facts. I remember looking at the 1851 London tournament book in a university library years ago and Staunton was downright bitchy about Williams and other slow players. So if the ultimate source for this information is Staunton himself, then it cannot be considered reliable. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I found the tournament book on line here: [4] pages 145-63 contain the relevant match. While Staunton certainly bitches and moans a lot about Williams' slow play, there is no indication that he resigned any of the games for this reason. I will remove this claim from the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Knight versus rook while the latter player is out of time – can it be a win for the knight?

"If player A calls attention to player B being out of time while player A is not out of time and some sequence of legal moves leads to B being checkmated then player A wins automatically. If player A does not have the possibility of checkmating B then the game is a draw."

Assume that in an endgame player A has only the king and one knight on the board, while player B has the king plus one rook. And then player A notices that player B had run out of time (while A had not). According to FIDE rules of chess, is it a win for player A?..

Under the FIDE rules, that is true. (USCF rules are different.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In some tournaments rule G.6.a might apply, whereby in a quickplay finish a player may claim a draw if the opponent is making no honest attempt to win the game on the board, but this requires a subjective assessment by the arbiter. https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article MaxBrowne (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rules of chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090105181234/http://vcchess.net/learn/ClockRules.pdf to http://vcchess.net/learn/ClockRules.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.Gharouni ^Talk 05:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed with current link.Gharouni ^Talk 05:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Mobile phones

• I read that there now is a new or newish FIDE rule that a player whose mobile phone rings during a game, thereby loses. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That's at least the last 10 years now. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016

The last bullet point (4) relating to Castling is superfluous. Bullet point 1 makes it clear that neither the king nor the rook can have moved previously, therefore they must, by definition, already be on the same rank.

120.152.152.23 (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• No, that was a loophole in the rules (see the reference). Before that, the e pawn could promote to a rook and could "castle" with the king. This was obviously not what was intended, so this condition was added. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Article: Checkmate should be opposite

Please change (The white king is threatened by the black queen.) to (The black king is threatened by the white king.) 101.127.44.22 (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

In the diagram you refer to, the white King is absolutely threatened by the black Queen. The Queen "threatens to take", and the King cannot take the Queen because she's protected. Also, Kings don't threaten to take each other. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2017

Consider changing instances of 'his' (eg. in the context "each player will have a limited amount of time to make all of his moves") to 'his and her' in line with WP:GNL and other Chess articles such as Chess. While sources such as Schiller may just reference 'his' in the source material, there's no reason to maintain that in this article if we are not directly quoting - we can fulfill WP:GNL since sentences with instances of 'his' are paraphrashed rather than a quote.

Main instances to note are in the section Competition rules. Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Done st170e 12:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we add a section about where the FIDE rules differ from the USCF rules?

I found what appears to be a good source at http://vachess.org/tournaments/NoVA-Open/2017/Summary%20of%20differences%20between%20the%20FIDE%20Laws%20of%20Chess.pdf

We have some differences scattered around the article. Should a list of all differences be put in a separate section? Should we mention the history of the differences? I found https://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/6233-meeting-between-fide-and-the-uscf-regarding-the-laws-of-chess.html but I didn't find any source that discusses whether they actually accomplished what that document talks about.

Related question: Are there any other chess organizations that have different rules? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. Differences are noted in the article, but it would be neater to do it like you suggest. Also, you have a reference for the differences, rather than just comparing the two rule books (as I did). Other organizations probably have some differences, but I suspect that just about everyone else is closer to the FIDE rules than the US. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Claims that I cannot find in the rulebooks.

The following two edits [5][6] make claims that I cannot find in the rulebooks.

I have in front of me the US Chess federaton's official rules of chess (6th edition) and the FIDE LAWS of CHESS (PDF downloaded from https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf today). I also have the Europian Chess Federation's Laws of chess, but they just say "B.3.1 The general FIDE Laws of Chess shall be applied with their supplements and interpretations as accepted by the FIDE General Assembly." plus an additional rule saying no draws befor move 32.

Neither set of rules appears to mention a position being repeated 5 times or 75 moves being made with no capture or pawn move. Of course I may be wrong; could the two of you please indicate the exact rule number you are talking about and the exact revision of the rules you are reading? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that copy is out of date. See Laws articles 9.6.1 and 9.6.2. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I have restored your edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I was so glad for that new rule. I was directing scholastic tournaments at the time, and almost none of the players knew to claim a draw and many of them didn't know basic checkmates. They would chase the king around with the queen endlessly. I'd stand by and count the moves (since they didn't record the moves) to see if one claimed a draw. Often I would count to around 300 moves before they would give up. Once it went to around 900 moves. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I can see how it would be advantageous there. OTOH, I am more of a fan of fantastically long tablebase wins, and was already annoyed by the 50-move rule getting claimed when someone has a forced mate in a few moves already, so I feel free to ignore this personally as a necessary adulteration to pure chess for practicality. ^_^ Seriously, this is what the people who actually work on tablebases do anyway: they will present fantastic wins in many, many moves, and ignore 50-move rule concerns. There currently are not general 6-man tablebases considering the 50-move rule, AFAIK. (There do seem to be 5-man ones.) In correspondence chess you can claim a win based on 6-man tablebases, and the 50- or 75-move rules are simply disregarded, according to our article on Endgame tablebases.

(P.S. At about that sort of age, I did manage to chase and corner the king with my queen with some competency. Unfortunately I went overboard and put him in stalemate instead... T_T) Double sharp (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that those long tablebase endgame wins are fascinating. I used to play a lot of correspondence chess, but that was before tablebases. I was directing USCF scholastic tournaments, and many were extremely weak players. It was extremely frustrating when they would just keep chasing the king around with the queen for hundreds of moves, which I had to count in case one claimed a draw. One girl, with the queen, said that her coach told her to never accept a draw. But she had no idea of how to checkmate. Most of the games were started without a clock, so I'd put them on a clock - without a time delay! - set to end when the round was supposed to end, and if they didn't checkmate by then, it was a draw. It was frustrating for the players too. My daughter knew how to checkmate with K+R vs. K when she was in the first grade. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Rule about illegal moves in rapid and blitz changed in 2018

From 2018 you no longer lose if you make an illegal move in rapid and blitz. Instead your opponent is awarded 2 minutes (rapid) or 1 minute (blitz) and play continues. Only after a second illegal move the game is lost. This is the same rule as for standard time games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.200.177 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have a good reference for that, please put it in. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently in FIDE Laws of Chess taking effect from 1 January 2018 Article 7: Irregularties. 7.5.5 specifies the penalty for making an illegal move that is applied by adding 2 minutes to the opponent's clock. It looks like the regulations for the World Rapid and Blitz competitions incorporate the Laws of Chess by reference. I didn't find anything about a difference in the time penalty for blitz compared to standard or rapid, but I'm not a TD or rules expert. Quale (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Redundancy of description with the example of castling

I tried to make a few improvements to parts of the article. For example, mentioning that for play with mechanical clocks and digital clocks, different rules regarding flag-fall apply. I was a bit surprised that such pieces of information have not been added. Anyway, for the castling, I made an update as well, for example, the use of "rank" is just far away from current rules.

When I further checked I found four places covering castling: castling in "Rules of Chess" article, castling in the "Chess" article, castling in the "Glossary of chess" and finally the main article Castling. Notably, the glossary even stating the tactical advantage of castling, where I have just no idea why a glossary must mention such a thing when there is the main article.

Personally, if I would not have learnt already what castling is, the different articles with all slightly different explanation approaches would be most confusing to me. I think this must be a common issue in Wikipedia, but I am a Wikipedia newbie and know nothing about it. So my question is, is there any best practice to deal with such an issue? I don't see the reason that each article produces an own elaborate explanation of castling, making changes which are consistent very cumbersome. Guess I got a bit lost on the subject, somebody please shine a light... Dlbbld (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all of those, but glossary should only define it and leave discussion of the advantage of it to the main article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Another loose observation, not related to castling but redundancy: Chess_clock#Timing_methods contains just the copied content of the main article Time_control#Increment_and_delay_methods. This is just non-sensical, or am I overlooking something? Dlbbld (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Put it on that page's talk page. I worked on a lot of the rules articles several years ago, but I didn't have anything to do with that one. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I added it there. I just wondered if in some information there is a reason for having it this way. For it is very unlikely, that this is unnoticed. Dlbbld (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Dead position

Does this mean that in Sibilio-Mariotti, Mariotti's 27...Kxf8 would technically be an illegal move under current rules? After all, Sibilio's 27.Qf8+ technically produced a "dead position" since there is no legal sequence of moves that can produce a mate. In a "dead position" the game is terminated effective immediately and subsequent moves are illegal. If 27...Kxf8 is illegal, is there any penalty? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how either move can be illegal. There is no rule against producing a stalemate. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The point is that 27.Qf8+ produced a dead position, terminating the game and rendering subsequent moves illegal.

Another anomaly - presumably black has just played ...QxQ(a2)+. White oversteps the time limit before completing the move Kxa2.

	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	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 the first case the game is a draw. White's only legal move is Kxa2 so there is no legal checkmate sequence, making this a "dead position". In the second case White loses because they can legally play Kc1, giving black the possibility of mate. Fair? Of course not, but that's how the rules are currently formulated. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

In the first one, it produces a dead position AFTER the capture. I can't see any reason to think it would be illegal. For any dead position, you get there by making a legal move. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the FIDE wording:

5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

That means position 1 is already a "dead position", immediately making the game a draw, but position 2 is not. This is a probably unintended effect of the current wording of the rules. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I finally see your point, but I don't think that is what they meant. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

MaxBrowne2 is correct, according to Geurt Gijssen's column, at least for classical time controls. The first position was killed by Black's move, therefore the game has ended in a draw. The fact that White overstepped the time limit before he could complete Kxa2 doesn't mean anything because the game is over. The second position is alive, so White loses on time. This is actually behind the whole idea of Dead Reckoning in chess problems.

And yes, 27...Kxf8 was illegal. That's not new, there are a bunch of such examples of illegal moves by grandmasters. No, I don't know if there is a penalty for such moves when the game is already over.

BTW, I think it is a fair rule. Firstly, the "dead position" rule is completely natural: the goal is checkmate, so once checkmate is impossible, the game must be a draw (stalemate is a special case). As for time controls, the whole point of one is to give a penalty when the time runs out. So it makes sense: in the second diagram, White deserves the penalty because his time ran out while the game was still ongoing. In the first diagram, the game ended when White's time had not yet been exhausted, so he should not be penalised. So the penalty becomes "always assume the flagged player makes the worst possible move", which is why he loses unless his opponent cannot checkmate him through any sequence of legal moves. I guess the real unfairness comes from the lack of an increment, so my answer to this would be (1) don't play on sudden death time controls if you can help it and (2) if you can't help it, call the arbiter, just like what you should do if someone is trying to win on time in K+N vs K+N.

Of course, there is one issue where the principles "penalise the flagged player" and "consider the situation on the board" come into conflict, adapted from Fries-Nielsen vs Hoi:

	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

Black to move

White has just played 1.Qxg3+. Black flags before he can make his move. According to the current rules, the game is drawn, because White cannot checkmate by any sequence of legal moves from this position. On the other hand, there is only one sequence of legal moves from this legal position: 1...Kxg3# checkmates White. So White cannot even draw by any sequence of legal moves from this position: the best case is that he loses. The need to punish flagging, however, apparently takes precedence. Double sharp (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the game, Fries-Nielsen's move Qxg3+ was clearly a joke, he was about to get mated with ...Qd5# so instead he chose to play a selfmate. In the unlikely event that a player flags in a position where the only legal move or moves deliver mate, the rules as currently formulated would make the game a draw. Given the rarity of actual self mates in practical play, this law is unlikely to be tested in practice. In any case it could be argued that a draw is a fair result since the clock is part of the game too. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent and unnecessarily gendered pronoun usage.

A game played under time control will end as a loss for a player who uses up all of their allotted time, which is called Flag-fall, unless the opponent cannot possibly checkmate him.

this sentence (under Flag-fall) refers to 'their' time, then uses 'him', shouldn't it use 'them'? Binarycat64 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously. But "their allotted time" is not "with clarity and precision", it's inherently confusing, potentially misunderstood to mean both players' times. --IHTS (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's annoying when editors come along and think they've done their wikipedia duty by just lazily substituting "they" for "he", "their" for "his" without giving any thought to the resulting sentences. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Another annoying blind substitution has been the awkward "he or she". (Which is gender-neutral-dubious on its face; i.e., why male before famale? So the man can open the door for the woman!? How chivalrous!) --IHTS (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Any chess player knows that the rules are exactly the same no matter the sex of the players. Yes there are more men chessplayers than women, but this doesn't mean that women chess players cannot reach the highest levels, even when playing under rules where the old-fashioned "neutral masculine" (i.e. using the masculine when the gender is unknown) is still applied. — Tonymec (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Fundamental points missed in the article

In my opinion, the article misses several fundamental points. First point: The article is about the rules of chess in general. The rules of chess in general per my understanding are not the FIDE rules of chess, but just the rules of chess "generally" accepted, which exists to some point per my understanding (but could also be wrong). That is instead of the article there could also be one article about the "general" rules of chess, and one article about the FIDE rules themselves. Now the article does not make a clear distinction between the two.

Second point: FIDE rules only cover OTB play but the article comes in sort of a general wording, that the reader has the impression that these rules are valid for everything. Strictly, the FIDE rules are not valid for online chess, but the article doesn't word this.

Third point: The FIDE rules are substantially different for classical, rapid and blitz chess. The article per my understanding does not make the necessary distinctions here. Most of the article content applies to classical chess only, like Adjournment, but the article misses to make this statement. When talking about the FIDE rules this distinction is however necessary. This is the best wording I could find, I hope the points are clear. Dlbbld (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems we agree that FIDE is not the ultimate authority on all things chess. That said the article seems to reflect this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not about FIDE relevance. As a reader, I am lost with the article. When reading through the article, some parts make only sense when interpreted in FIDE context. The article is much too complex for me, so for bad example only, section "Resigning" under "Draws" mentions scoresheet. But scoresheet makes only sense under tournament play, but the context is not given. This should be in "Competition rules". But that is only one of many points. The article should mention when it relates to FIDE rules and when not. The mix of perspectives between FIDE perspective, historical perspective, casual play and other perspectives without declaring is most confusing and strictly just wrong. Dlbbld (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

When I was directing a scholastic tournament, I was called to a table. One player said that his brother said that if you move the king three times in a row, it is a draw. And I had plenty of players in the scholastic tournaments that think you can capture any piece en passant. When I was a kid, the kid that first introduced me to chess said that you won by capturing the opposing king and queen. So informal players are not always correct with regards to the rules. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

As another example, I encountered adult players who have learnt the chess rules as such that the castle right is lost after the king was in check. I have no idea what the "general" rules of chess over all the world could look like. Such an article is just most difficult. This difficulty is the reason per my opinion that the article is switching back and forth between implicitly referencing the FIDE rules (when it comes to details) and making general statements (when possible) for such an article is just impossible without relating to a specific source. Dlbbld (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, the generally accepted rules of chess are the FIDE rules, at least for over-the-board play in Europe and in all international tournaments. For correspondence play the ICCF rules are law, but which moves are legal and which ones aren't is determined exactly identically, the main differences are in how to keep score, how to record time, and things like that. In US domestic tournaments, I suppose the "generally accepted" rules are the USCF rules, which differ from the FIDE rules in a few very small details, but basically they are almost identical: Bobby Fischer learnt chess in the US but he was perfectly at ease playing it under FIDE rules all over the world, and conversely Susan Polgar learnt chess under FIDE rules, first in Hungary then in the rest of Europe and of the world, but that doesn't prevent her from training one of the best college chess teams (or possibly the best one) in the USA.

When I was refereeing interclub tournaments in Belgium, I always had with me a copy of the FIDE rules of chess, and it was agreed (even if not always explicitly mentioned) that all such tournaments were to be played according to FIDE rules, with two hours per player for the first 40 moves, and if necessary one hour for the next 20. Adjournments were possible but extremely rare. The players knew the rules, if not always in all the fine points, but none of them would have claimed that you could take a Queen en passant or that three successive King moves by a single player drew the game. They might be a little hazy about the proper way to agree on a draw or what exactly it meant to have too little material for a win, so if anyone asked, I could tell them what the little booklet said. — Tonymec (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Capturing the king

In a footnote we are claiming that in USCF rules, capturing the king is a legal way to win, if the opponent has just made an illegal move (e.g. moving the king into check or leaving it there). But this is true only for USCF Blitz rules.

This is one non-trivial difference between Blitz rules and normal rules; there may be others. It might or might not be a good idea to have a paragraph that summarizes the differences. Right now, we don't mention Blitz at all. For now, I will remove the footnote. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I was wrong, we do mention Blitz. But we don't mention it until later (under Competition Rules), and we don't mention any of the differences in rules between Blitz and Standard. As I said, it would be possible to list the differences, but I haven't thought very hard about whether this would be a good idea. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is the most important difference between Blitz and "slow" chess: in a slow game, any illegal move must be taken back, even if the illegality is only noticed later. In Blitz, an illegal move loses the game if the opponent claims a win before answering the illegal move, but OTOH if answered, the move stands. IMHO differences between Blitz rules and "normal" rules deserve to be mentioned in any relevant sections of this article, maybe in more places than where (before seeing this talk page section) I added back (with what I hope is enhanced phrasing) the reference to USCF rules about losing for making an illegal move in Blitz. I used to be a Belgian chess arbiter (not for international competitions) but it's been years since I've retired, and I don't own a copy of the FIDE Laws of Chess anymore; but IIRC the exact same rule, or at least an extremely similar one, exists in the FIDE rules for Blitz chess. In particular a King left in check may be taken to claim a win, but moving one's King next to the opponent's is itself an illegal move and doesn't win the game even if the opponent fails to notice it. — Tonymec (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've found the FIDE rules online, here. There used to be a "loss for illegal move" in Blitz but it was removed in 2018. — Tonymec (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Règle du Jeu des Échecs de la F.I.D.E. juin 1928

Hello, I have scanned and uploaded file

Règle du Jeu des Échecs de la F.I.D.E. juin 1928

. If it's usefull, you may insert it in the article or in some other chess article. It's also on french wikisource now --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, this is an excellent resource for the history of chess rules. Keeping in mind that FIDE was not as poweful in 1928 and their rules were not universally observed; the Soviet Union didn't join FIDE until 1946. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

I suggest to add unwritten rules of chess such as etiquette and etc which must be followed. Listed below are the Unwritten rules and etiquettes of chess that should be followed. 1)Players on Both sides have to shake hands before the game; Not doing this Might lead to penalization in form of a warning or addition of time to opponents clock.

2) Hit the chess clock moderately or softly. Hitting the chess clock very hard shows anger, frustration or unneeded aggression.

3) Shit talking in a chess game shows lack of Sportsmanship and is disrespectful to your opponent. Chess is a game of silence and avoid talking during a game; An Appeal by your opponent might lead to a Warning

4) Do not behave rudely after losing the game; Excessive rude behaviour like assaulting the Opponent can lead to DISQUALIFICATION from the tournament.

5) Shaking hands after the game is over is considered as good etiquette.

6) Discussing the game after it is finished is considered good sportsmanship.

7) Do not argue with an Arbiter as His/Her decision is Final and Binding.

8) Crowding Near another person's game should be avoided and sometimes is prohibited.

Following these rules is advised. This just makes the experience of this beautiful game better.

Some of these can get you in trouble. Irrespective of that, These rules should be followed. Amogh Panthangi (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm sorry, but if the rules truly are unwritten then they can't be added to Wikipedia due to the policy on verifiability. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

FIDE does have a catch-all rule against distracting or annoying the opponent. There is no requirement to go over the game with the opponent afterwards. If you don't feel like it, you don't have to. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2021

Change 'it' to 'its' in this sentence: "exposing it own king to check or leaving the own king in check".

49.195.106.221 (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 49.195.106.221 (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Conduct?

The conduct page could have said "Players should handshake" but not during a epidemic or pandemic or remove "Players should handshake". LukeyBear11 (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

What if we add the word "normally"? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Medieval rules

Near the beginning of the History section, we are saying "The modern rules first took form in southern Europe during the 13th century, giving more mobility to pieces that previously had more restricted movement (such as the queen and bishop). Such modified rules entered into an accepted form during the late 15th century[85] or early 16th century.[86]" This was recently edited to say "southern Europe"; it formerly said "Italy".

Neither Italy in particular, nor southern Europe in general, is supported by either of the cited references (Hooper & Whyld, and Ruch). To get an idea of what might have changed in the 13th century, I consulted Murray ([7]), pages 456 to 461 (approximately), in which he describes variations of the rules used in Spain and in Lombardy. This is far from unambiguous in support of what we are saying. That is, he does not give a specific date or era, or a specific location, for the origin of the "modern" rules, prior to the late 15th century. Also, I see that we do not at this time cite Murray in support of this sentence. So it's pretty mysterious. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

</ref> correction?

Fourth paragraph in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess#Codification :

Some other differences are noted above.</ref>

Don't know what happened but I guess either someone forgot to put some reference or it just doesn't belong there. If it's the latter then it should be removed, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:515:4C93:3BE5:2883 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Text change

In the table for pieces the text "Number" should be changed to "Amount" since that is less ambiguous. 68.118.148.8 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe "quantity". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It is correct to use "amount" for a mass noun, but for something you can count, you're supposed to use "number". It's not ambiguous.

I don't think "quantity" is any better than "amount". Bruce leverett (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Stick with "number". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"Laws of chess"

Is it necessary to list "laws of chess" as another term for "rules of chess"? It doesn't seem like an alternative name that actually provides additional information. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that is what FIDE calls them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting to read what Hooper & Whyld have to say about this. The Oxford Companion to Chess has separate entries for laws and rules.

"rules, conventions for playing competitive chess, distinct from the LAWS which are inherent in the game. Until 1984 the the Laws and the Rules were given separately, but then FIDE amalgamated them."

This is an interesting distinction that I hadn't considered before. This article covers both rules and laws, which is the same as the modern FIDE practice. Quale (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Do we mention this distinction in the article? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Possibly but I'd be more comfortable if there was more than one source. Hooper & Whyld is excellent but occasionally eccentric in its terminology, e.g. "co-ordinate notation" for algebraic notation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Max that the distinction doesn't need to be in the article unless it can be found in other sources. I mentioned the Hooper & Whyld distinction because it was new to me and I found it interesting. The distinction is not baseless, but I think in common usage "Laws of Chess" and "Rules of Chess" are used interchangeably. The English translation of the official FIDE laws from 1974 given in Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess shows the laws were organized into two parts as noted by Hooper & Whyld: Part 1: General Laws, and Part 2: Additional Rules for Competitions. Quale (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

En passant

@ISaveNewspapers: What is the idea of this change? In an en passant capture, the capturing pawn does not replace the captured pawn on its square. So, I would have thought the sentence needed that additional qualification, awkward as it may have been. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Consider the difference between the following sentences:

"If player A's piece moves to a square occupied by player B's piece, then player B's piece is captured."

"If player B's piece is captured, then player A's piece has moved to the square occupied by player B's piece."

The first sentence is effectively what the sentence in the article says. However, I think you have mistakenly taken the interpretation in the second sentence. And I'm pretty sure I did in the past, too, because I think I'm actually the one who added that qualification. But if you take a careful reading, it actually implies: "In some or all instances of the occurrence of an en passant capture, a piece, attacking an enemy piece, moves to the enemy piece's square but does not capture the enemy piece." This statement is false, which is why I removed the qualification that implied it. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I see your logic. Comparing with the USCF and FIDE rules, I guess that if they can get away with not mentioning en passant at this juncture, we can too. Looking at the history of this article, I see that you didn't exactly add the qualification -- there was a mention of en passant in there almost since the beginning; but I don't think it will be missed. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Illegal move - time penalty

With the FIDE rules valid from 1 January 2023 the time penalty in Rapid for an illegal move has been changed from two minutes to one minute (article A.3).

I am not sure what is better to reflect this in detail or to phrase the article more generally, omitting time penalty duration. Dlbbld (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Resigning

FIDE rules changed valid from 1 January 2023 for a resignation not being an unconditional loss anymore. When a player resigns, but the opponent has no mate, the game is now a draw (the part in italics has been added):

5.1.2 The game is lost by the player who declares he/she resigns (this immediately ends the game), unless the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. In this case, the result of the game is a draw.

I assume this section is in the context of a "universal" perception of chess. Where I cannot say what this looks like. The question is then whether this recent FIDE rule change should be reflected in this "universal" perception. Dlbbld (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added the update to the article (being very clear to point out that it is a FIDE rule and not necessarily a rule that everyone plays by). Edderiofer (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Spelling

under irregularities, under incorrect setup, "standard" is missspelled as "ctandard". Also, the article alternates between "color" and "colour" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C4A:437F:8179:B964:1230:67EC:E262 (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Typo fixed. We need to agree on which spelling of the other word to use. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the very first version (2002 some time) used "color", as did a later version from 2005. For whatever that's worth. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

That means American English has been established as the standard for the article, and per MOS:RETAIN should not be changed without consensus. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Dead Position

For the dead position section in the "End of the game" section, isn't king vs. king and two knights drawn? Piequals3point14159 (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No, there are legal sequences of moves that can lead to checkmate. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Although the side with the two knights cannot force checkmate, they can give mate if the opponent plays badly. So this is not a dead position.

Another way to think about it is to say that a position is dead if the two players can't cooperate to get either player mated.

(As for the question you actually asked: under FIDE Laws and USCF Rules, it's not an automatic draw. If the side with the lone king runs out of time, then FIDE usually rules it as a win (6.9) and USCF usually rules it as a draw (14E3).) Edderiofer (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What is the rule of chess

How do I play chess 2600:100D:B04E:36CF:3DD3:765C:A7AB:F7E0 (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)